{ "id": 5515594, "name": "In re W.W., a Minor, Appellant (The People of the State of Illinois, Appellee)", "name_abbreviation": "In re W.W.", "decision_date": "1983-05-18", "docket_number": "No. 56886", "first_page": "53", "last_page": "58", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "97 Ill. 2d 53" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "Ill.", "id": 8772, "name": "Illinois Supreme Court" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 29, "name_long": "Illinois", "name": "Ill." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "75 Ill. App. 3d 494", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 3274113 ], "year": 1977, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/75/0494-01" ] }, { "cite": "66 Ill. 2d 385", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 5465012 ], "weight": 2, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "389" }, { "page": "389" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/66/0385-01" ] }, { "cite": "370 Ill. 283", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 2562924 ], "year": 1974, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "288-89" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill/370/0283-01" ] }, { "cite": "408 Ill. 79", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 2642414 ], "year": 1979, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "82-83" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill/408/0079-01" ] }, { "cite": "70 Ill. App. 3d 374", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 5578342 ], "weight": 2, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "375-76" }, { "page": "376" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/70/0374-01" ] }, { "cite": "40 Ill. 2d 338", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 2855841 ], "year": 1979, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "342" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/40/0338-01" ] }, { "cite": "74 Ill. 2d 213", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 2993974 ], "year": 1968, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "220" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/74/0213-01" ] }, { "cite": "88 Ill. 2d 36", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 3083404 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/88/0036-01" ] }, { "cite": "88 Ill. App. 3d 64", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 3176359 ], "year": 1981, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/88/0064-01" ] }, { "cite": "92 Ill. App. 3d 1141", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 5535442 ], "year": 1980, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/92/1141-01" ] }, { "cite": "71 Ill. 2d 166", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 5448796 ], "weight": 3, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "173" }, { "page": "174" }, { "page": "179" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/71/0166-01" ] }, { "cite": "103 Ill. App. 3d 1203", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "opinion_index": 0 } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 460, "char_count": 8082, "ocr_confidence": 0.723, "pagerank": { "raw": 3.195863078395312e-07, "percentile": 0.8655512348403324 }, "sha256": "dc25fdcb2bced5707f51e6a3e49f22159eb123e6b8b19a5e462bc50452bec82c", "simhash": "1:190ba066e9032ce3", "word_count": 1331 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:40:22.409111+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "In re W.W., a Minor, Appellant (The People of the State of Illinois, Appellee)." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "JUSTICE MORAN\ndelivered the opinion of the court:\nAfter a history of delinquency not relevant to this appeal, the circuit court of McHenry County adjudicated the respondent, W.W., delinquent and adjudged him a ward of the court. At a subsequent dispositional hearing, respondent was committed to the Department of Corrections. The appellate court affirmed the committal by order (103 Ill. App. 3d 1203) pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 23 (73 Ill. 2d R. 23). Thereafter, upon the State\u2019s motion, the appellate court assessed State\u2019s Attorney fees for defending the appeal against respondent in the amount of $50. We granted respondent\u2019s petition for leave to appeal.\nThere is but one question presented: Can a minor be assessed State\u2019s Attorney fees as costs for an unsuccessful appeal?\nThe State moved for the assessment of its attorney fees against respondent under section 8 of \u201cAn Act concerning fees and salaries ***,\u201d which provides in relevant part:\n\u201cState\u2019s attorneys shall be entitled to the following fees ***:\nFor each case of appeal taken *** to the Supreme or Appellate Court when prosecuted or defended by him, $50.\nAll the foregoing fees shall be taxed as costs to be collected from the defendant, if possible, upon conviction. But in cases of inquiry into the mental illness of any person alleged to be mentally ill, in cases on a charge of paternity and in cases of appeal in the Supreme or Appellate Court, where judgment is in favor of the accused, the fees allowed the State\u2019s Attorney therein shall be retained out of the fines and forfeitures collected by them in other cases.\u201d Ill. Rev. Stat. 1979, ch. 53, par. 8.\nThe allowance and recovery of costs, being unknown at common law, rests entirely upon statutory provisions which must be strictly construed. (People v. Nicholls (1978), 71 Ill. 2d 166, 173.) In Nicholls, a criminal defendant challenged the appellate court order assessing State\u2019s Attorney fees as costs on appeal. This court found basic authority for assessing prosecution costs against criminal defendants in the criminal costs statute, which provides:\n\u201cWhen any person is convicted of an off\u00e9nse under any statute, or at common law, the court shall give judgment that the offender pay the costs of the prosecution.\u201d (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1975, ch. 38, par. 180 \u2014 3.)\nAfter quoting this statute, section 8 of the fees and salaries act (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1975, ch. 53, par. 8) and two sections in \u201cAn Act to revise the law in relation to costs\u201d (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1975, ch. 33, pars. 22, 25), this court said: \u201c[These] statutory provisions, when read together, indicate a legislative scheme which authorizes the assessment of State\u2019s Attorneys\u2019 fees as costs in the appellate court against an unsuccessful criminal appellant upon affirmance of his conviction.\u201d 71 Ill. 2d 166, 174.\nRespondent asserts there is no provision similar to the criminal costs statute in the Juvenile Court Act (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1979, ch. 37, par. 701 \u2014 1 et seq.) which would authorize an assessment of unsuccessful appeal costs against minors. He also notes that the appellate court previously has refused to impose court costs, or State\u2019s Attorney per diem fees, on minors for this very reason. In re J.M.S. (1981), 92 Ill. App. 3d 1141; In re G.B. (1980), 88 Ill. App. 3d 64, rev\u2019d on other grounds (1981), 88 Ill. 2d 36.\nThe State argues section 8 alone provides sufficient authority to assess such costs. It emphasizes the statutory language which provides that State\u2019s Attorneys are entitled to fees \u201c[flor each case of appeal taken *** to the Supreme or Appellate Court\u201d and that \u201c[a]ll the foregoing fees shall be taxed as costs to be collected from the defendant, if possible, upon conviction.\u201d (Emphasis added.) The State points out the legislature provided three specific instances in which State\u2019s Attorneys were to obtain their fees from fines and forfeitures collected in other cases. Those concern cases inquiring into the alleged mental illness of any person, cases on a charge of paternity and cases of appeal in which the State does not prevail. The State stresses the legislature failed to include as an exception cases on appeal from delinquency proceedings in which the State prevails.\nRelying on the rule of statutory construction that an expression of certain exceptions in a statute is to be interpreted as an exclusion of all others, the State maintains the legislature did not intend to exempt juvenile delinquents from payment of statutory State\u2019s Attorney fees. This contention, however, ignores the well-established rule that statutes in derogation of the common law are to be strictly construed in favor of persons sought to be subjected to their operation. Our courts will read nothing into such statutes by intendment or implication. Barthel v. Illinois Central Gulf R.R. Co. (1978), 74 Ill. 2d 213, 220; Summers v. Summers (1968), 40 Ill. 2d 338, 342; Lites v. Jackson (1979), 70 Ill. App. 3d 374, 375-76.\nEven if a statute has remedial features but is in derogation of the common law, it will be strictly construed when determining what persons come within its operation. (Cedar Park Cemetery Association, Inc. v. Cooper (1951), 408 Ill. 79, 82-83; Lites v. Jackson (1979), 70 Ill. App. 3d 374, 376.) Moreover, such statutes will not be extended any further than what the language of the statute absolutely requires by its express terms or by clear implication. Walter v. Northern Insurance Co. (1938), 370 Ill. 283, 288-89; 73 Am. Jur. 2d Statutes sec. 288 (1974).\nIn strictly construing section 8 in favor of the minor, we do not find a clear legislative expression in its language imposing State\u2019s Attorney fees for an unsuccessful appeal against minors. In addition, there is no juvenile costs statute similar to the criminal costs statute which, when read with section 8, would indicate a legislative scheme authorizing assessment of such costs. Nor do we believe such an assessment is clearly implied from the provisions in section 8.\nSection 8 specifically provides that State\u2019s Attorney fees are to be taxed as costs and collected from the \u201cdefendant,\u201d if possible, upon \u201cconviction.\u201d In In re Beasley (1977), 66 Ill. 2d 385, 389, this court said juvenile proceedings are not criminal in nature. As such, a minor is neither \u201cconvicted\u201d nor considered, a \u201cdefendant\u201d or an \u201caccused.\u201d Nor is a proceeding under the Juvenile Court Act denominated a \u201cconviction.\u201d (In re R.R. (1979), 75 Ill. App. 3d 494.) Rather, such proceedings are to be administered in a spirit of humane concern for the minor and to promote both the welfare of the minor and the best interests of the community. Ill. Rev. Stat. 1979, ch. 37, par. 701-2; In re Beasley (1977), 66 Ill. 2d 385, 389.\nWe do not believe assessing a minor $50 for an unsuccessful appeal would further the purposes and policy expressed in the Juvenile Court Act. Nor do we find the legislature, through section 8, necessarily intended such an assessment. As this court said in Nicholls: \u201cIn light of present-day county budgeting and accounting procedures, the provisions of section 8 (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1975, ch. 53, par. 8) relating to State\u2019s Attorney fees may appear to be a relic of another era which might well merit the attention of the legislature.\u201d (People v. Nicholls (1978), 71 Ill. 2d 166, 179.) Under these circumstances, we will not extend this provision by intendment or implication to assess State\u2019s Attorney fees on appeal against minors.\nFor the reasons stated, the appellate court\u2019s order assessing State\u2019s Attorney fees against the respondent is vacated.\nOrder vacated.", "type": "majority", "author": "JUSTICE MORAN" } ], "attorneys": [ "G. Joseph Weller, Deputy Defender, of the Office of the State Appellate Defender, of Elgin, for appellant.", "Neil F. Hartigan, Attorney General, of Springfield, and Theodore J. Floro, State\u2019s Attorney, of Woodstock (Phyllis J. Perko and William L. Browers, of the State\u2019s Attorneys Appellate Service Commission, of Elgin, of counsel), for the People." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "(No. 56886.\nIn re W.W., a Minor, Appellant (The People of the State of Illinois, Appellee).\nOpinion filed May 18, 1983.\nRehearing denied September 30, 1983.\nG. Joseph Weller, Deputy Defender, of the Office of the State Appellate Defender, of Elgin, for appellant.\nNeil F. Hartigan, Attorney General, of Springfield, and Theodore J. Floro, State\u2019s Attorney, of Woodstock (Phyllis J. Perko and William L. Browers, of the State\u2019s Attorneys Appellate Service Commission, of Elgin, of counsel), for the People." }, "file_name": "0053-01", "first_page_order": 65, "last_page_order": 70 }