Jones, In Interest of

• Decision Date: 16 June 1980
• Docket Number: No. 79-491,79-491
• Citation: 407 N.E.2d 691,85 Ill.App.3d 1122,41 Ill.Dec. 193
• Parties: , 41 Ill.Dec. 193 In the Interest of Dennis JONES, a minor. PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Petitioner-Appellee, v. Dennis JONES, a minor, Respondent-Appellant.
• Court: United States Appellate Court of Illinois

Page 691

407 N.E.2d 691

85 Ill.App.3d 1122, 41 Ill.Dec. 193

In the Interest of Dennis JONES, a minor.

PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Petitioner-Appellee, v. Dennis JONES, a minor, Respondent-Appellant.

No. 79-491.

Appellate Court of Illinois, First District, First Division.

June 16, 1980.

James J. Doherty, Public Defender of Cook County (Dennis E. Urban and Frances Sowa, Asst. Public Defenders, of counsel), for respondent-appellant.

Bernard Carey, State's Atty., County of Cook (Marcia B. Orr, Myra J. Brown, Christopher Cronson, Asst. State's Attys., of counsel), for petitioner-appellee.

CAMPBELL, Justice:

Pursuant to a petition for adjudication of wardship, and a subsequent delinquency finding on September 12, 1977, respondent, a minor, was committed to the Department of Corrections under the Juvenile Court Act. Ill.Rev.Stat.1977, ch. 37, par. 701-1 et seq. This appeal followed.

Respondent has presented the following issues for review:

(1) Whether the trial judge, who placed the minor on one year probation on March 15, 1977, pursuant to a delinquency finding and who also committed him to the Department of Corrections on the same delinquency finding on September 12, 1977, inflicted multiple punishments for the same offense in violation of the double jeopardy clauses of both the United States Constitution and Illinois Constitution.

(2) Whether a minor who was placed on one year probation on March 15, 1977 was deprived of due process when the trial court on September 12, 1977 committed him to the Department of Corrections on the same original delinquency petition without a finding of a probation violation.

(3) Whether the trial judge who induced the minor's admissions to the charges with a promise that he would not commit the minor to the Department of Corrections properly required that this promise be fulfilled or that respondent be allowed to withdraw his admissions.

(4) Whether the court properly modified the disposition of respondent's case based upon a prior plea agreement which the court had agreed to after changed circumstances were brought to the court's attention.

We shall first consider the last issue relating to the matter of a prior plea agreement. Respondent, in his brief, claims that the following matters occurred prior to the order of commitment on September 12, 1977.

On February 21, 1977, a petition No. 77J 1719 for adjudication of wardship was filed in the Juvenile Division of the circuit court charging respondent with burglary. (Ill.Rev.Stat.1975, ch. 38, par. 19-1.) The Public Defender was appointed and a denial to the charge was entered. Respondent's brief further claims that on March 15, 1977, the trial judge informed the respondent that he was going to participate in a conference relative to a possible acceptance of certain admissions from him in connection with a negotiated settlement. The brief contains the following colloquy from the report of proceedings from the record on the same day:

"MR. MICHAEL: (Prosecutor) Your Honor, the agreement that we have discussed in chambers with the public defender and the Court involves admissions to Petitions 77 1179 and 77 1097. Those are the two petitions.

MS. ECKERT: (Public Defender) 1719?

MR. MICHAEL: (Prosecutor) Lines 22 and 28. There are two additional petitions which have been advanced and reset from Thursday on Calendar 12 to this courtroom today. Those two petitions, pursuant to the pretrial agreement, the State intends to have Stricken On Leave to Reinstate.

THE COURT: This is Dennis Jones before me, is that correct?

MS. ECKERT: (Public Defender) Yes, sir."

"MS. ECKERT: Your Honor, if I may, there has been a conference between the State's Attorney and myself.

During that conference, the State's Attorney communicated to me

THE COURT: What will the date be on this progress record?

MR. MICHAEL: 4/25

MS. ECKERT: That if Dennis Jones were to withdraw his previously entered denial as to two counts of burglary; specifically, 77J 1097 and 77J 1719 and at this time enter an admission, they would SOL the other two counts petitions that are against him from Calendar 12."

"THE COURT: Public Defender, I'm not sure what you're getting at. It's my understanding a year's probation, referral to UDIS (Uniform Delinquent Intervention Service) Oh, see what you're saying.

You mean that he can't get DOC if UDIS doesn't want him."

"THE COURT: I mean, the feeling was that whether or not UDIS became involved or they were referred, that DOC would not be an alternative disposition, is that correct, Miss State's Attorney, on all these cases?

MS. AMDUR: (Prosecutor) That's correct.

MS. ECKERT: I wanted to state it for the record.

THE COURT: You've done so.

MS. ECKERT: I indicated this to Mr. Jones. He does understand this, and he wishes to withdraw his previously entered plea of denial to Petition 77 1097 and 77 1719 and enter an admission."

After asking the respondent his age and educational background and ascertaining that he knew what an admission meant, the trial judge stated:

"THE COURT: Well, we have reached an agreement in your case. Pursuant to the public defender's request I was called in to a pre-trial conference in this matter.

State's attorney talked to the public defender. We all talked together about your record, and we discussed the possible settlement of this with an admission to two charges and two charges being dismissed or SOL'd do you understand that we talked that we talked about that?"

The trial judge did not mention that the respondent could be committed to the Department of Corrections when he informed the respondent of his rights. After the trial judge advised the respondent of his constitutional rights and obtained a factual basis for both petitions, which was stipulated by defense counsel, the respondent voluntarily entered admissions to both petitions (1097 and 1719). Both petitions involved burglary charges. Thereafter, the trial judge said the following:

"THE COURT: Court will accept the admission. There will be a finding of delinquency, adjudication of wardship.

Disposition will be one year's probation, social investigation, refer to UDIS, progress report on 4/25."

We have quoted at length from respondent's brief, which quotes refer to the excerpts of record and the report of proceedings contained in the common law record filed with the Clerk of this Court. We note from the report of proceedings that proceedings were held on the following dates: February 21, 1977, March 15, 1977, March 16, 1977, April 25, 1977, May 9, 1977, May 27, 1977, June 13, 1977, June 24, 1977, June 25, 1977, and September 12, 1977. On the last page of said report of proceedings nine different names are listed as court reporters for the above dates and two signatures appear to certify the entire report of proceedings. No explanation appears as to the other seven names.

Also on page 13 of the Report of Proceedings the following appears from the hearing on March 15, 1977:

"THE COURT: Your name, sir?

MR. MICHAEL: This is Perry Morgan.

THE COURT: Dennis Jones?

MINOR RESPONDENT JONES: Yes.

THE COURT: All right. Mr. Public defender, gentlemen, I've been asked by the Public defender to participate in a conference in relation to the possible acceptance of certain admissions from you in connection with a negotiated settlement.

In other words, the State will talk. Your attorney will talk. I'll Listen, and I'll talk, and perhaps there will be some agreement between the three of us and a decision as to what the appropriate disposition of these cases should be if you admit certain charges.

Do you understand that? That I'm going to participate? Do you understand that?

MINOR RESPONDENT MORGAN: Yes.

MINOR RESPONDENT JONES: Yes.

THE COURT: And do you authorize me to hear this material at this time?

Do you object to my hearing this about your records so that we can negotiate a settlement?

Do you object either of you?

MINOR RESPONDENT MORGAN: No.

MINOR RESPONDENT JONES: No.

THE COURT: If we reach an agreement, and it's not acceptable to one or both of you, I will accuse (sic) myself and this matter will be tried by another judge unless your attorney waives that at this time, do you understand that?

MINOR RESPONDENT MORGAN: Yes.

MINOR RESPONDENT JONES: Yes.

(Whereupon hearing in the above-entitled cause was continued to 1:30 p. m. on the same date heretofore mentioned.)

The State, in its brief, has not refuted or denied the claims of respondent as to the record filed in this case nor has the State denied that a plea bargaining agreement providing for probation on Case No. 77J 1719 was approved by the State and the court at the March 15, 1977 hearing. The State maintains that under petition 77J 1719 that no disposition took place.

In its brief, the State initially maintains that no disposition took place in the instant case on March 15, 1977 and that the order simply constituted a referral to UDIS (Uniform Delinquent Intervention Service), with a request for progress reports, and a request that a social investigation report be prepared. Section 5-1 of the Juvenile Court Act, (Ill.Rev.Stat.1977, ch. 37, Section 705-1), provides that after adjudging a minor a ward of the court, the court shall hear evidence regarding the proper dispositional order. Section 705-1 provides for written and oral reports. Clearly in the instant case the court did not intend to make a disposition of this matter on March 15, 1977, pursuant to Section 705-1 since no reports were ordered prior to March 15, and the report was in fact ordered on March 15. Rather, the court intended to continue the matter so that a social investigation could be obtained and a referral to UDIS could be arranged. This is evidenced by the fact that the case subsequently reappeared numerous times for progress reports. The fact that a referral to UDIS was ultimately made, the UDIS referral was the desired effect of the March 15, 1977 order. Accordingly, the March 15, 1977 order entered by the trial court...