{
  "id": 5799182,
  "name": "In re R.S.L., a Minor (The People of the State of Illinois, Petitioner-Appellee, v. R.S.L., a Minor, Respondent-Appellant)",
  "name_abbreviation": "People v. R.S.L.",
  "decision_date": "1991-11-21",
  "docket_number": "No. 4\u201491\u20140231",
  "first_page": "808",
  "last_page": "810",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "221 Ill. App. 3d 808"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "101 Ill. 2d 438",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. 2d",
      "case_ids": [
        3161206
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-2d/101/0438-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 227,
    "char_count": 3047,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.784,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 5.8591662004228935e-08,
      "percentile": 0.3641903446880494
    },
    "sha256": "3ca077c1f4b97f9e9f2bbc16a7e66bb51a8ec6292d31b094bc88792abeae494f",
    "simhash": "1:dfcaacc462570c80",
    "word_count": 496
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:24:34.404944+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "In re R.S.L., a Minor (The People of the State of Illinois, Petitioner-Appellee, v. R.S.L., a Minor, Respondent-Appellant)."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "PRESIDING JUSTICE LUND\ndelivered the opinion of the court:\nFollowing a dispositional hearing on March 21, 1991, under the Juvenile Court Act of 1987 (Act) (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1989, ch. 37, par. 801 \u2014 1 et seq.), in the circuit court of Champaign County, respondent minor was placed on 12 months\u2019 probation by the trial court for the offense of theft. (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1989, ch. 38, par. 16 \u2014 1(a)(2)(A).) The respondent minor stipulated to the charge, and the court then made a finding that he was a delinquent minor. At the dispositional hearing, the State objected to the minor\u2019s case being continued under supervision. The court then formally adjudicated the minor to be a ward of the court and placed him on probation because it believed the State\u2019s objection to supervision precluded it from placing the respondent minor on supervision. During the dispositional hearing, the trial judge expressed his desire to place the minor on court supervision, regardless of the State\u2019s Attorney\u2019s objection. However, as noted, he did not find authority for doing so.\nFor purposes of this opinion, we are treating all mention of \u201con supervision\u201d with an \u201corder of continuance under supervision,\u201d as provided by sections 5 \u2014 19(1) and (2) of the Act (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1989, ch. 37, pars. 805-19(1), (2)).\nOn appeal, respondent first contends that supervision can be given after the adjudication of delinquency and issuance of an order making the minor a ward of the court, based upon sections 5 \u2014 23 and 5 \u2014 24 (probation provisions) of the Act (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1989, ch. 37, pars. 805 \u2014 23, 805 \u2014 24). Second, respondent contends the provision allowing the State\u2019s Attorney to limit the power of the court is unconstitutional. Addressing the second contention first, we find the constitutionality of the provision has been upheld. In re T. W. (1984), 101 Ill. 2d 438, 463 N.E.2d703.\nThe constitutionality having been upheld, we hold that the trial court did not have the authority to grant respondent a continuance under supervision, as envisioned by sections 5 \u2014 19(1) and (2) of the Act. The purpose of section 5 \u2014 19 of the Act is to enable a court to place a minor under its control without an adjudication; thus providing an opportunity, upon successful completion of the controlled supervision, to dismiss the juvenile petition and proceedings; thus avoiding a negative finding. The limitation on the granting of a continuance under supervision by the State\u2019s Attorney\u2019s objection is absolute. The trial court\u2019s determination was correct.\nAffirmed.\nSTEIGMANN and KNECHT, JJ., concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "PRESIDING JUSTICE LUND"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Kristen H. Fischer, of Champaign, for appellant.",
      "Thomas J. Difanis, State\u2019s Attorney, of Urbana (Kenneth R. Boyle, Robert J. Biderman, and David E. Mannchen, all of State\u2019s Attorneys Appellate Prosecutor\u2019s Office, of counsel), for the People."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "In re R.S.L., a Minor (The People of the State of Illinois, Petitioner-Appellee, v. R.S.L., a Minor, Respondent-Appellant).\nFourth District\nNo. 4 \u2014 91\u20140231\nOpinion filed November 21, 1991.\n\u2014 Rehearing denied January 9, 1992.\nKristen H. Fischer, of Champaign, for appellant.\nThomas J. Difanis, State\u2019s Attorney, of Urbana (Kenneth R. Boyle, Robert J. Biderman, and David E. Mannchen, all of State\u2019s Attorneys Appellate Prosecutor\u2019s Office, of counsel), for the People."
  },
  "file_name": "0808-01",
  "first_page_order": 830,
  "last_page_order": 832
}