People v. Fox
| Decision Date | 28 February 1994 |
| Docket Number | No. 1-91-1142,1-91-1142 |
| Citation | 197 Ill.Dec. 82,258 Ill.App.3d 534,630 N.E.2d 1206 |
| Parties | , 197 Ill.Dec. 82 The PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Theodore FOX, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | United States Appellate Court of Illinois |
Rita A. Fry, Public Defender, County of Cook, Chicago (Dennis E. Urban, of counsel), for defendant-appellant.
John M. O'Malley, State's Atty., County of Cook, Chicago (Renee G. Goldfarb, Susan S. Wigoda, Susan Smith Snyder, of counsel), for plaintiff-appellee.
Following a bench trial, defendant Theodore Fox was convicted of delivery of a controlled substance and sentenced to a term of three years imprisonment. On appeal, defendant contends that his conviction and sentence must be vacated because he was less than 17 years of age when the crime occurred and he was not subject to adult criminal jurisdiction.
According to State's evidence, at 9 p.m. on January 12, 1989, policemen driving an unmarked squad car conducted a controlled purchase of a $10 "pony pack" of cocaine from defendant near 2510 West Flournoy in Chicago. Defendant testified that he was visiting his girl friend and their son at the time of the incident and denied any knowledge of the offense.
Defendant contends that his conviction and sentence must be vacated because he was less than 17 years of age when the drug sale was committed, and he was not subject to adult criminal jurisdiction. Whether a person is tried in juvenile or criminal court is a matter of procedure. (People v. DeJesus (1989), 127 Ill.2d 486, 498, 130 Ill.Dec. 471, 537 N.E.2d 800.) The juvenile court is merely a division of a single unified court system. (People v. P.H. (1991), 145 Ill.2d 209, 222, 164 Ill.Dec. 137, 582 N.E.2d 700.) A juvenile who willfully misrepresents his age as subjecting him to criminal jurisdiction waives the statutory procedures which inure to juvenile accused of criminal offenses. In re Greene (1979), 76 Ill.2d 204, 214, 28 Ill.Dec. 525, 390 N.E.2d 884.
In the present case, defendant did not raise the issue of his age until after the trial court found him guilty of the charges. Defendant then testified that he was 16 years old at time of the offense, had four juvenile court cases pending, and that at time of his arrest, police reported his birthdate as December 12, 1971, despite his protestation that he was born July 17, 1972. Notwithstanding, the parties stipulated that certain police officers would testify that defendant identified his birthdate as December 12, 1971, when he was arrested on August 1, 1989, February 17, 1990, April 3, 1990 and June 5, 1990, and that defendant's probation officer would testify that defendant stated...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Arnold
...to the court and police officers and fails to make age an issue until after he is found guilty. In People v. Fox, 258 Ill.App.3d 534, 535-36, 197 Ill.Dec. 82, 630 N.E.2d 1206, 1207-08 (1994), this district held that where a "defendant did not raise the issue of his age until after the trial......
-
People v. Hawkins
...the criminal court system and then ask to reinstate juvenile proceedings following an unfavorable outcome. People v. Fox, 258 Ill. App. 3d 534, 536, 630 N.E.2d 1206, 1208 (1994). By choosing to proceed in criminal court, defendant has waived review of this issue and we will not consider it ......
- Estate of Banks, In re
-
People v. Archer
...adult criminal proceedings and then attempt to use the juvenile transfer provision "upon an unfavorable outcome." See People v. Fox, 258 Ill. App. 3d 534, 536 (1994). Therefore, the trial court properly dismissed defendant's postconviction petition as defendant lacked standing. Defendant wa......