People v. H.L. (In re H.L.)

• Decision Date: 12 May 2016
• Docket Number: No. 2–14–0486.,2–14–0486.
• Citation: 403 Ill.Dec. 604,54 N.E.3d 264
• Parties: In re H.L., a Minor (The People of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff–Appellee, v. H.L., Defendant–Appellant).
• Court: United States Appellate Court of Illinois

54 N.E.3d 264

403 Ill.Dec. 604

In re H.L., a Minor (The People of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff–Appellee, v. H.L., Defendant–Appellant).

No. 2–14–0486.

Appellate Court of Illinois, Second District.

May 12, 2016.

Michael J. Pelletier, Thomas A. Lilien, and Sherry R. Silvern, State Appellate Defender's Office, Elgin, for appellant.

Richard H. Schmack, State's Attorney, Sycamore (Lawrence M. Bauer and Victoria E. Jozef, State's Attorneys Appellate Prosecutor's Office, of counsel), for the People.

OPINION

Justice BIRKETT delivered the judgment of the court, with opinion.

¶ 1 Beginning in approximately 2010, respondent, H.L., became involved in the juvenile justice system, admitting to an allegation of mob action, for which he received a five-year term of probation. Respondent's behavior would appear to improve, but then respondent would continue to take backward steps. In 2012, respondent admitted to an allegation of robbery, for which he received a modified term of probation to continue until his twenty-first birthday. In 2013, respondent admitted to a charge of unlawful possession of cannabis, and this time, the circuit court of De Kalb County sentenced respondent to an indeterminate term in the Department of Juvenile Justice (Department).

¶ 2 Following this sentence, respondent appealed, arguing that his attorney did not comply with Illinois Supreme Court Rule 604(d) (eff. Feb. 6, 2013), because he had not filed the certificate before or at the time of the hearing on respondent's motion to reconsider his sentence, and that the trial court erred in sentencing him to an indeterminate term in the Department. We agreed with respondent's first contention, and we reversed and remanded the cause for strict compliance with Rule 604(d). In re H.L., 2014 IL App (2d) 140486, ¶ 7, 386 Ill.Dec. 336, 20 N.E.3d 498 (H.L. I ). The State appealed, and our supreme court reversed, holding that Rule 604(d) does not require that counsel file a Rule 604(d) certificate at or before the hearing on the defendant's postplea motion. In re H.L., 2015 IL 118529, ¶ 25, 400 Ill.Dec. 631, 48 N.E.3d 1071 (H.L. II ). The supreme court remanded this case and ordered that we consider the remaining issue on appeal. Id. ¶ 27.

¶ 3 In this appeal, respondent's remaining issue is whether the trial court abused its discretion in committing respondent to the Department for an indeterminate term. Respondent argues that the trial court failed to first consider less restrictive alternatives to indeterminate incarceration with the Department and that the trial court failed to address the appropriate factors in passing sentence. We vacate and remand for resentencing.

¶ 4 I. BACKGROUND

¶ 5 On May 17, 2010, the State filed a petition for adjudication in case No. 10–JD–103, alleging that respondent was a delinquent minor because he committed the offenses of aggravated battery (720 ILCS 5/12–4(b)(8) (West 2010)) and mob action (720 ILCS 5/25–1(a)(1) (West 2010)). The charges arose from an incident in which respondent was alleged to have struck and kicked another minor in the face and head. On August 12, 2010, respondent pleaded guilty to the offense of mob action, and the trial court sentenced him to a 60–month term of probation. In addition the trial court imposed no-contact and no-gang-activity orders and ordered respondent to complete community service, to participate in school or community activities, to engage in counseling, to attend school, to complete assessments for substance abuse and anger management, and to follow the resultant recommendations.

¶ 6 In September 2010, the State filed a petition to revoke respondent's probation, based on allegations that respondent committed a battery. Respondent admitted to the petition to revoke, and the State nol-prossed the battery charge. The trial court modified respondent's probation, imposing more conditions.

¶ 7 In May 2012, the State again filed a petition to revoke, this time based on information in respondent's status reports indicating that he had unexcused absences from school and suspensions from school, had made gang-related drawings or graffiti, was using marijuana, and was absent from his home without parental permission. Respondent admitted to the petition to revoke. The trial court modified respondent's probation, adding a five-day term in juvenile detention to be stayed pending respondent's compliance with the other terms of his probation. The trial court also ordered respondent to submit to inpatient substance-abuse and psychiatric evaluations and to follow the recommendations.

¶ 8 On July 23, 2012, the State filed a new petition for adjudication of delinquency against respondent. In case No. 12–JD–134, the State alleged that respondent had committed the offenses of robbery (720 ILCS 5/18–1(a) (West 2012)) and battery (720 ILCS 5/12–3(a)(2) (West 2012)). The charges arose from an incident in which respondent, in answering a Craigslist advertisement, pushed the victim, who was purportedly selling him a ring, snatched the ring out of her grasp, and fled to his home. The trial court ordered a temporary detention. Based on the charges in the new petition for adjudication, the State also moved to revoke respondent's probation and to lift the stays on the detention and electronic-home-monitoring orders that had been entered over the course of respondent's cases. Respondent was eventually released from the temporary detention, and the trial court placed him on electronic home monitoring.

¶ 9 Respondent complied with the ordered services. An August 2012 status report showed that respondent had completed a substance-abuse evaluation and had been placed into an inpatient treatment program. Respondent's September 2012 status report noted that respondent was participating in his inpatient treatment program, which was going well. On September 26, 2012, respondent successfully completed the treatment program, but his prognosis remained “guarded.”

¶ 10 On October 2, 2012, respondent pleaded guilty to the robbery charge in case No. 12–JD–134, and respondent admitted to the alleged probation violations in case No. 10–JD–103. On the same date, the State nol-prossed the battery charge in case No. 12–JD–134. The trial court accepted respondent's guilty plea, revoked respondent's probation on the mob-action charge in case No. 10–JD–103, and sentenced respondent on the probation violation and robbery adjudication. The trial court imposed a term of probation extending to respondent's twenty-first birthday, ordered respondent to complete 60 hours of community service, and ordered respondent to pay restitution. The trial court also placed respondent on 45 days of electronic home monitoring. Finally, the trial court ordered respondent to serve a 30–day term of detention in the Kane County youth home, but the detention was stayed pending respondent's compliance with the other terms imposed.

¶ 11 Respondent's December 2012 status report disclosed that respondent was falling into his old behavior patterns. Respondent had written in school that his goal was to become a hardcore gang member, and he had drawn gang symbols. Respondent also had a number of unexcused absences from school and suspensions from school. Respondent had resumed his use of marijuana. Respondent had not obtained the previously ordered psychiatric evaluation.

¶ 12 In January 2013, the State petitioned to revoke respondent's probation and to lift the stay on the 30–day detention. On January 30, 2013, the State amended the petition to revoke, alleging that respondent was not taking prescribed medication. The trial court closed the case because respondent was not complying with his recommended treatment, he was refusing to participate in urine testing, and he was leaving his home without parental permission and returning home intoxicated. On that same day, the trial court issued a juvenile arrest warrant for respondent, and respondent was arrested within two days. When respondent appeared before the trial court, the court ordered respondent to resume taking his prescribed medication and released him on the most restrictive level of electronic home monitoring.

¶ 13 In February 2013, respondent's status report was not encouraging. Respondent expressly claimed membership in the Latin Kings, and he continued to leave his home without returning before his curfew.

¶ 14 On February 14, 2013, respondent admitted the allegations in the State's petition to revoke: that he drew gang signs at school, that he had received a suspension from school, that he used marijuana, that he committed the offense of unlawful possession of alcohol by a minor, and that he left his home without parental permission. The trial court ended the stay on respondent's 30–day detention, but respondent received a 4–day credit for time spent in custody. The trial court additionally modified respondent's sentence to include an inpatient substance-abuse evaluation for treatment at Gateway and subsequent compliance with any treatment recommendations.

¶ 15 In April 2013, the trial court acknowledged that respondent was participating in the STEPS program. Respondent acknowledged that he had missed three sessions, and respondent was informed that a fourth absence would result in his termination from the STEPS program. Respondent also had received school suspensions and unexcused absences from school, had not completed his previously ordered community service, and had not enrolled in substance-abuse counseling. Because of this noncompliance, the State filed a petition to revoke respondent's probation. The State subsequently amended its petition to include the allegation that respondent received a suspension from school because he made verbal threats, including a gang reference, to another student.

¶ 16 Before the hearing on the petition, a July 2013 status report indicated that respondent had stopped attending counseling and had stopped taking his prescribed medication. The status report also indicated that respond...