Opinion
Appeal No. 3-11-0467 Circuit No. 11-JD-96
06-19-2013
In re ANTOINE B., a Minor The People of the State of Illinois, Petitioner-Appellee, v. Antoine B., Respondent-Appellant.
NOTICE: This order was filed under Supreme Court Rule 23 and may not be cited as precedent by any party except in the limited circumstances allowed under Rule 23(e)(1).
Appeal from the Circuit Court
of the 10th Judicial Circuit,
Peoria County, Illinois,
Honorable
Chris L. Fredericksen,
Judge, Presiding.
JUSTICE delivered the judgment of the court.
Presiding Justice Wright and Justice Holdridge concurred in the judgment.
ORDER
¶ 1 Held: In a juvenile-delinquency case, the trial court did not commit an abuse of discretion by sentencing the minor respondent (respondent) to the Department of Juvenile Justice for an indeterminate term not to exceed three years. The appellate court, therefore, affirmed the judgment of the trial court. ¶ 2 Respondent, Antoine B., was adjudicated delinquent for two counts of felony theft (720 ILCS 5/16-1(a)(1)(A), (b)(2) (West 2010)) and committed to the Department of Juvenile Justice (DOJJ) for an indeterminate term not to exceed three years. Respondent appeals, arguing that the trial court committed an abuse of discretion in its dispositional decision by sentencing him to the DOJJ without giving adequate consideration to less-restrictive sentencing alternatives. We affirm the trial court's judgment.
¶ 3 FACTS
¶ 4 In March 2011, a juvenile-delinquency petition was filed charging the 14-year-old respondent with two counts of Class 4 felony theft for stealing two bicycle lights. The charges were elevated to felonies because respondent had a prior juvenile-delinquency adjudication for theft. At a plea hearing, respondent admitted the allegations of the petition and was adjudicated delinquent. A dispositional report was ordered and the case was set for a dispositional (sentencing) hearing. ¶ 5 The dispositional report indicated that respondent lived in Peoria with his mother and his sister. Respondent's mother was legally blind and on disability and had previously been convicted of prostitution and a felony drug offense. His father, with whom he had only minimal contact, was in prison for first degree murder. Respondent had numerous interests and was not involved in a street gang. He had been attending high school as a ninth-grade student before the instant offenses occurred. ¶ 6 According to the dispositional report, respondent had a prior history of drug and alcohol use. He had attempted substance abuse treatment, including residential treatment, several times in the past and was unsuccessfully discharged each time for problematic behavior. Respondent reported that he had used the drug "ecstasy" for the first time on the day of the instant offenses. ¶ 7 Respondent also had a prior history of juvenile delinquency. He had previously been adjudicated delinquent for aggravated battery in 2008 and for theft in 2009. For the aggravated battery charge, respondent was placed on probation and was ordered to complete anger management counseling. He violated that probation by committing another aggravated battery, was placed on a second term of probation, and was ordered to complete anger management and mental health counseling. For the theft charge, respondent was initially placed on probation, was required to be screened for alcohol and drug abuse, and was ordered to complete anger management and mental health counseling and any substance abuse treatment that was recommended. He was later committed to the DOJJ for an indeterminate term not to exceed one year after he violated his probation by being unsuccessfully discharged from an inpatient substance abuse treatment center. During his time in the DOJJ, respondent completed the requirements for eighth grade and also completed substance abuse classes. Respondent was paroled from the DOJJ in February 2011, about five weeks before the instant offenses took place. ¶ 8 Since the date of the instant offenses, respondent had been detained at the county juvenile detention center (JDC). While in the JDC, respondent was fulfilling his educational requirements and his behavior, for the most part, was satisfactory. However, respondent was involved with several other detainees in a large fight that took place. In a youth assessment screening instrument that was prepared as part of the dispositional report, respondent was scored as a high risk with areas of concern including "Legal History, Community/Peers, Alcohol/Drugs, and Skills." In addition, the probation officer that prepared the dispositional report recommended that respondent be committed to the DOJJ. ¶ 9 The dispositional hearing was held in May 2011. At the hearing, the trial court considered the dispositional report, listened to the recommendations of the attorneys, and gave respondent an opportunity to make a statement. The prosecutor recommended that respondent be committed to the DOJJ, and respondent's attorney recommended that respondent be placed on probation. At the conclusion of the hearing, the trial court made respondent a ward of the court and committed respondent to the DOJJ for an indeterminate term not to exceed three years. In announcing its ruling, the trial court made the following comments.
"First of all, the Court finds sufficient evidence exists it's in the best interest of the minor and the public that the minor be made a ward of this court.¶ 10 Respondent filed a motion to vacate his prior admissions and to reconsider his sentence. A hearing was held on the motion at which time, the trial court specifically considered whether respondent's sentence was excessive. The trial court found that the sentence was reasonable under the circumstances and denied the motion. Respondent appealed.
[Respondent], I do realize that you did do some positive things while you were in the [DOJJ] previously and that you were going to school upon your release, but at the same time it's hard for this Court to ignore the fact that less than five weeks after you were paroled you committed two more criminal offenses.
I do recognize for the most part that your conduct in the [JDC] was not terrible, but you were involved in one significant altercation together with many other juveniles. It is also clear to this Court, [Respondent], that you, obviously, did not learn anything from your previous stay in the [DOJJ] because shortly after you were released you came out and committed two more criminal offenses. Therefore, I am going to find that despite your mother's best efforts you are out of control. That she cannot adequately modify, train or discipline you. That in order to protect yourself as well as the public I am going to sentence you to a commitment to the [DOJJ] not to exceed three years."
¶ 11 ANALYSIS
¶ 12 On appeal, respondent argues that the trial court committed an abuse of discretion in its dispositional decision by sentencing him to the DOJJ without giving adequate consideration to less-restrictive sentencing alternatives. Respondent asks, therefore, that we vacate the sentence and that we remand this case for a new dispositional hearing. The State argues that the trial court's ruling was proper and should be affirmed. ¶ 13 During a dispositional hearing in a juvenile-delinquency case, if the trial court determines that a minor should be made a ward of the court, it must then determine an appropriate disposition (sentence) that will best serve the minor and the public. 705 ILCS 405/5-705(1) (West 2010); In re Veronica C., 239 Ill. 2d 134, 145 (2010). The trial court has broad discretion in selecting an appropriate disposition. See 705 ILCS 405/5-710 (West 2010); In re T.L.B., 184 Ill. App. 3d 213, 215 (1989). In making its decision, the trial court may consider all helpful evidence, including oral and written reports, and need not defer to any particular alternative or recommendation. See 705 ILCS 405/5-705(1) (West 2010); T.L.B., 184 Ill. App. 3d at 215; In re J.C., 260 Ill. App. 3d 872, 884 (1994). A trial court may commit a delinquent minor to the DOJJ after considering the protection of the public and whether there is adequate parental control. In re A.D., 228 Ill. App. 3d 272, 276 (1992). Commitment, however, should only be imposed when a less-severe placement would not be in the best interests of the minor and the public. In re Nathan A.C., 385 Ill. App. 3d 1063, 1077 (2008). On appeal, the trial court's dispositional decision will not be reversed unless its findings of fact are against the manifest weight of the evidence or it committed an abuse of discretion by selecting an inappropriate dispositional order. In re Seth S., 396 Ill. App. 3d 260, 275 (2009). ¶ 14 In the present case, in determining the appropriate disposition for respondent, the trial court considered the dispositional report and the recommendations of the attorneys and gave respondent an opportunity to make a statement. The dispositional report listed all of the positive and negative aspects of respondent's prior background and experience, including those positive aspects cited by respondent on appeal-that he had completed substance abuse classes and the requirements for eighth grade while previously in the DOJJ and that he was currently attending high school. However, the trial court was also aware of, and focused on, respondent's prior history of juvenile delinquency and placed great significance upon the fact that respondent had committed the instant offenses only about a month after he was released from the DOJJ on parole from his previous offense. Based upon those facts and the uncontested findings of the trial court-that respondent's mother could not control him and that commitment was necessary to protect the public-we cannot say that the trial court committed an abuse of discretion by committing respondent to the DOJJ. We must, therefore, affirm the trial court's judgment. See Seth S., 396 Ill. App. 3d at 274-75. In so ruling, we find no merit to respondent's contention that the trial court failed to give adequate consideration to less-restrictive sentencing alternatives. Inherent in the trial court's finding-that commitment to the DOJJ was necessary for the protection of the public and the minor-is a determination that less-restrictive alternatives were not appropriate in this particular case.
¶ 15 CONCLUSION
¶ 16 For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the judgment of the circuit court of Peoria County. ¶ 17 Affirmed.