People v. Henderson
| Citation | 276 N.E.2d 377,2 Ill.App.3d 285 |
| Decision Date | 11 November 1971 |
| Docket Number | Gen. No. 54994 |
| Parties | PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Linda HENDERSON (Impleaded), Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | United States Appellate Court of Illinois |
Herbert Becker, Ronald P. Katz, James J. Doherty, Asst. Public Defenders, Chicago, for defendant-Appellant.
Robert A. Novelle and Henry A. Hauser, Asst. State's Attys., Chicago, for plaintiff-appellee.
Defendant, Linda Henderson, was found guilty of attempted robbery by a circuit Court judge sitting without a jury. The judge sentenced her to from one to three years in Dwight Women's Reformatory, but upon subsequently learning that she was 17 years of age rather than 18 as she alleged at trial, the judge entered a nunc pro tunc order correcting mittimus to 'The Illinois Youth Commission.' On appeal defendant argues that the Criminal Division of the Circuit Court had no jurisdiction to hear the charge against defendant, that the charge should have been brought before the Juvenile Court, and that, therefore, her conviction should be reversed.
We affirm.
Because no issue of evidence is involved in this appeal, we need not recite the facts upon which the charge of attempted robbery was predicated. Suffice it to say that the Circuit Court found them adequately proved to establish defendant's guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
At trial defendant testified that she was 18 years of age. She was found guilty as charged and sentenced by the Court on December 11, 1969. On February 8, 1970, defendant's mother filed a Petition to Correct Mittimus alleging that at the time of trial and sentencing defendant was only 17 years old, and praying for an order nunc pro tunc correcting the mittimus to change the place of confinement to the Illinois Youth Commission rather than the 'Illinois Reformatory for Women at Dwight, Illinois.' That same day the Court allowed the petition, and ordered defendant committed to the custody of the Juvenile Division of the Department of Corrections.
The defendant would have this court find that not only was the Circuit Court without jurisdiction to sentence defendant to the Youth Commission after learning her true age, but further, that it was without jurisdiction to try the case initially in spite of defendant's voluntary misrepresentation of her age. Defendant maintains that this follows as a consequence of the Juvenile Court Act, Ill.Rev.Stat.1969, ch. 37, par. 702--7(1) which reads as follows:
Criminal Prosecutions Limited.) (1) Except as provided in this Section, no boy who was under 17 years of age or girl who was under 18 years of age at the time of the alleged offense may be prosecuted under the criminal laws of this State or for violation of an ordinance of any political subdivision thereof.
We find that the Circuit Court was with jurisdiction to try this matter. Article VI, Sec. 9 of the Illinois Constitution of 1870, S.H.A., provides that the Circuit Court is to have unlimited original jurisdiction of all justiciable matters, and such powers of review of administrative action as may be provided by law. The only limitation placed on the jurisdiction of the Circuit Court under the Constitution of 1970 (Article VI, Sec. 9) is in those matters where the Supreme Court has original and exclusive jurisdiction relating to the redistricting of the General Assembly and to the ability of the Governor to serve or resume office.
To be subject to prosecution for criminal offenses in Illinois, the party must commit an offense wholly or in part within the state, and furthermore, the accused must have been at least 13 years of age at the time the offense is alleged to have been committed. Ill.Rev.Stat.1969, ch. 38, pars. 1--5, 6--1.
Thus, the Criminal Division of the Circuit Court and the Juvenile Court, a division of the Circuit Court of Cook County, share authority over those persons who at the time of the alleged offense are at least 13 years of age, but under 17 years of age for males or 18 years of age for females. The division of the court before...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Arnold
...27 (1977). As Hall correctly states, "[People v.] Smith [59 Ill.2d 236, 240, 319 N.E.2d 760, 763 (1974)] and [People v.] Henderson [2 Ill.App.3d 285, 288, 276 N.E.2d 377, 378 (1971)] suggest that prosecution of a juvenile in adult criminal proceedings without regard to the transfer provisio......
-
Twyman v. State
...as a juvenile. Penn v. Peyton, (W.D.Va.1967) 270 F.Supp. 981; Smith v. State, (Fla.App.1977) 345 So.2d 1080; People v. Henderson, (1971) 2 Ill.App.3d 285, 276 N.E.2d 377; State v. Peterson, (1966) 9 Ohio Misc. 154, 223 N.E.2d 838; Sheppard v. Rhay, (1968) 73 Wash.2d 734, 440 P.2d 422; Nelso......
-
Grandison v. Warden, Maryland House of Correction, 77-2186
...P.2d 948, 953 (1968) (and authority cited therein); Sheppard v. Rhay, 73 Wash.2d 734, 440 P.2d 422, 426 (1968); People v. Henderson, 2 Ill.App.3d 285, 276 N.E.2d 377 (1971). We leave for a future date the issue as to whether a juvenile, by misrepresenting his age as that of an adult, waives......
-
Greene, In re
...procedures which inure to juveniles accused of criminal offenses (Ill.Rev.Stat.1977, ch. 37, par. 702-7; People v. Henderson (1971), 2 Ill.App.3d 285, 288, 276 N.E.2d 377; People v. Hall (1977), 55 Ill.App.3d 341, 343, 13 Ill.Dec. 331, 371 N.E.2d 26; see People v. Smith (1974), 59 Ill.2d 23......