People v. Gooden, 77-96

Decision Date28 December 1977
Docket NumberNo. 77-96,77-96
Citation14 Ill.Dec. 36,56 Ill.App.3d 408,371 N.E.2d 1089
Parties, 14 Ill.Dec. 36 The PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Mike GOODEN a/k/a Mike Jones and a/k/a McWesley Jones, Defendant-Appellee.
CourtUnited States Appellate Court of Illinois

Bernard Carey, State's Atty. of Cook County, Chicago (Lee T. Hettinger, Joan S. Cherry, Rimas F. Cernius, Chicago, of counsel), for plaintiff-appellant.

James J. Doherty, Public Defender of Cook County, Chicago (Aaron L. Meyers, John Thomas Moran, Chicago, of counsel), for defendant-appellee.

SIMON, Presiding Justice.

The defendant, Mike Gooden, was charged by indictment returned by the Cook County grand jury on March 22, 1976 with the burglary of a department store on October 21, 1975. He was arraigned on June 8, 1976 and pleaded not guilty. Thirty-six days later, before trial, the defendant moved to dismiss the indictment. The basis for his motion was that because he had been born on January 5, 1960, he was 15 years old at the time of the offense, and he was not transferred from juvenile to criminal court in accordance with the procedures set forth in the Juvenile Court Act, (Ill.Rev.Stat. 1975, ch. 37, par. 702-7). That statute provides that a minor may be prosecuted under the criminal laws for an offense committed when he was under 17 only upon motion of the State's Attorney and if, following an investigation and a hearing, a juvenile court judge determines it is not in the best interests of the minor or the public to proceed in the juvenile court. The statute sets out specific matters which the juvenile court judge is directed to consider in making this determination, and also provides that, with the consent of counsel, a minor may elect to be prosecuted in the criminal court. The circuit court dismissed the indictment, and the State appeals.

The defendant contends that because of the State's failure to follow the procedures in the statute, the criminal court did not have the right or authority to try the defendant. In opposition, the State asserts that the defendant told police officers who arrested him on three separate occasions between September 18, 1975 and January 18, 1976 that his date of birth was January 5, 1957, and also that while using an alias, the defendant received a sentence of 1 year adult probation for theft for another offense. The State further maintains that by his prior acts of misrepresenting his age to the police on three different occasions, and submitting himself as an adult to the criminal court when charged with another offense, the defendant waived his right to take advantage of the transfer provisions of the Juvenile Court Act. The State also contends that the defendant consented to being tried by the criminal court.

A motion by the State to transfer a juvenile to the criminal court, followed by a subsequent hearing before a judge assigned to the juvenile court, and a valid determination by that judge permitting criminal prosecution all are mandatory conditions precedent to adult criminal prosecution of a minor under the age of 17 when the offense was committed who does not request to be prosecuted as an adult. (People v. Rahn (1974), 59 Ill.2d 302, 319 N.E.2d 787; People v. Boclaire (1975), 33 Ill.App.3d 534, 337 N.E.2d 728.) The legislature's clear mandate in section 2-7(3) of the Juvenile Court Act is that the State's Attorney has no authority to determine whether a juvenile will be prosecuted in the criminal court or in the juvenile court. He only can make a recommendation; the decision is a judicial one to be made by a judge assigned to the juvenile court. Because this defendant was 15 years old at the time of the alleged offense, the failure to hold a transfer hearing before a juvenile court judge precludes the defendant's prosecution as an adult.

The precedents on which the State principally relies are People v. Henderson (1971), 2 Ill.App.3d 285, 276 N.E.2d 337 and People v. Walker (1974), 19 Ill.App.3d 798, 313 N.E.2d 217. In Henderson the defendant misrepresented her age to the police and testified at her trial that she was 18. Two months after she was sentenced, her mother filed a petition alleging that defendant was a juvenile at the time of trial and sentencing. On appeal the defendant argued that the criminal court had no authority to try her because of her age. The conviction was affirmed on the narrow pragmatic ground that a defendant should not be allowed to "take her chances" in a criminal proceeding, and then, after an adverse outcome, demand reversal and a new trial in the juvenile court. In Walker, the court relied solely on Henderson to affirm the conviction of a 16-year-old boy who misrepresented his age to the police but not at trial and did not bring his true age to the attention of the court until after he had been convicted and sentenced.

Our supreme court circumscribed the Henderson holding in People v. Smith (1974), 59 Ill.2d 236, 319 N.E.2d 760. In that case, the court observed that a circuit court ruling vacating a conviction based on a guilty plea of a 16-year-old defendant who had misrepresented his age to the police was proper. In a matter of minutes after his sentencing, the defendant's mother through defense counsel informed the court of the defendant's correct age. In comparing Henderson to the case before it, the Smith court said:

"Unlike People v. Henderson, 2 Ill.App.3d 285, 276 N.E.2d 337, appeal denied, 49 Ill.2d 578, the present case does not involve a defendant's wilful misrepresentation of his age in sworn testimony before the trial court and a failure to attempt to rectify the situation until nearly two months after judgment was entered upon a criminal conviction." Smith, 59 Ill.2d at 240, 319 N.E.2d at 763.

Neither Henderson nor Walker are applicable to this case. Gooden never "took his chances" in a criminal court in connection with the offense with which he is now charged, and he did not misrepresent his age in sworn testimony before the trial court. Unlike the defendant in Henderson, Gooden promptly attempted before trial to rectify the situation which had brought him to the criminal court, instead of waiting until after judgment was entered upon a criminal conviction. Moreover, the provision relied on in Henderson that sets forth the procedure for trial of juveniles in a criminal proceeding (Ill.Rev.Stat. 1969, ch. 37, par. 702-7(3)) had been substantially modified by the time Gooden was indicted. (Ill.Rev.Stat. 1975, ch. 37, par. 702-7(3).) Gooden did not attempt to take advantage of the court by causing it undue expense and effort; on the contrary, he asserted his right to a juvenile hearing promptly. In fact, he asserted his right at a much earlier stage than did the defendant in Smith, where, because of the defendant's minority the court vacated a judgment after the defendant already had pleaded guilty. The State still had the opportunity to bring criminal charges against Gooden pursuant to the transfer procedures of section 2-7(3) of the Juvenile Court Act. Thus, the public interest was not in any way prejudiced.

The State's appeal also contends that the defendant's conduct amounts to an exercise of his right, provided by section 2-7(5) of the Juvenile Court Act (Ill.Rev.Stat. 1975, ch. 37, par. 702-7(5)) to be tried as an adult, or as a waiver of the need to comply with the requirements of that provision. The statute provides:

"(5) If a petition alleges commission by a minor 13 years of age or over of an act which constitutes a crime under the laws of this State, the minor, with the consent of his counsel, may, at any time before commencement of the adjudicatory hearing, file with the court a motion that criminal prosecution be ordered and that the petition be dismissed insofar as the act...

To continue reading

Request your trial
12 cases
  • People v. Arnold
    • United States
    • United States Appellate Court of Illinois
    • 31 May 2001
    ... ...         The cases relied upon by defendant can be distinguished because the minors promptly raised age as an issue. In People v. Gooden, 56 Ill.App.3d 408, 14 Ill.Dec. 36, 371 N.E.2d 1089 (1977), we held that waiver did not apply. In that case, we specifically stated that "Gooden ... ...
  • T.R.B., In Interest of
    • United States
    • Wisconsin Supreme Court
    • 2 November 1982
    ... ... district attorney, a person from the Wisconsin Department of Health and Social Services, two people" from the sheriff's department, the parents of T.R.B., T.R.B., and T.R.B.'s attorney ...     \xC2" ... See People v. Gooden, 56 Ill.App.3d 408, 14 Ill.Dec. 36, 371 N.E.2d 1089, 1091 (1977) ...         In the case ... ...
  • Greene, In re
    • United States
    • Illinois Supreme Court
    • 24 May 1979
    ... ... 525 ... In re Irish D. GREENE, a Minor, Appellee ... Appeal of the PEOPLE of the State of Illinois (two cases) ... In re Edward EICHER, a Minor, Appellee ... In re Marvin ... Gooden (1977), 56 Ill.App.3d 408, 412, 14 Ill.Dec. 36, 371 N.E.2d 1089 (noting that waiver of juvenile ... ...
  • T.L.B., In Interest of
    • United States
    • United States Appellate Court of Illinois
    • 8 June 1989
    ...539 N.E.2d 1340 ... 184 Ill.App.3d 213, 132 Ill.Dec. 534 ... In the Interest of T.L.B. (The People of the State of ... Illinois, Petitioner-Appellee v. T.L.B., ... Respondent-Appellant) ... No ... See People v. Gooden (1977), 56 Ill.App.3d 408, [14 Ill.Dec. 36,] 371 N.E.2d 1089; People v. Shaw (1972), 3 Ill.App.3d ... ...
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT