{
  "id": 5110111,
  "name": "In re L.L., A Minor (The People of the State of Illinois, Appellee, v. L.L., Appellant)",
  "name_abbreviation": "People v. L.L.",
  "decision_date": "1993-03-15",
  "docket_number": "No. 1-89-0979",
  "first_page": "1010",
  "last_page": "1012",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "243 Ill. App. 3d 1010"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "506 N.E.2d 739",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "153 Ill. App. 3d 1095",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d",
      "case_ids": [
        3608933
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app-3d/153/1095-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "561 N.E.2d 204",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "weight": 2,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "203 Ill. App. 3d 917",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d",
      "case_ids": [
        2583561
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app-3d/203/0917-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "456 N.E.2d 7",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "year": 1990,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "98 Ill. 2d 226",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. 2d",
      "case_ids": [
        3121858
      ],
      "year": 1990,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "233"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-2d/98/0226-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 331,
    "char_count": 4833,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.79,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 8.958875016565372e-08,
      "percentile": 0.5018273266124782
    },
    "sha256": "8835e50fcdb8881ecad6a897605eb170e122af98e47fb96e963db5a9cf5a12a6",
    "simhash": "1:50d138450d4a1e80",
    "word_count": 824
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:55:01.285518+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "In re L.L., A Minor (The People of the State of Illinois, Appellee, v. L.L., Appellant)."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "PRESIDING JUSTICE MANNING\ndelivered the opinion of the court:\nThis appeal is brought on behalf of L.L., a minor, pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 660(a) (134 Ill. 2d R. 660(a)), from an order entered by the juvenile division of the circuit court of Cook County. The court refused to credit L.L. for time he spent in custody prior to his dispositional hearing on the issue of revocation of probation. The State contends that review of the issue is moot because L.L. completed his probation satisfactorily prior to this appeal. The office of the Appellate Defender has filed an amicus curiae brief in support of L.L.\u2019s arguments on appeal.\nWe do not address L.L.\u2019s contention on appeal because our review of the facts reveals that his claim is moot. The principal facts pertinent to our disposition follow.\nOn July 14, 1988, L.L. was placed on a year\u2019s probation following a finding of delinquency. Thereafter, on December 12, 1988, he was arrested and the State sought to revoke his probation when it filed a supplemental petition alleging that L.L. had committed the offense of robbery. L.L. was held in custody from December 14 to December 28, 1988.\nOn February 16 and 17, 1989, the court conducted an adjudicatory hearing and found L.L. delinquent on the ground that he violated his probation. On February 17, 1989, the court also ordered a social investigation report, entered an order of detention of L.L. and continued the case until March 9, 1989, at which time the dispositional hearing was to be held. L.L. remained in custody from the time of the adjudicatory hearing on February 17, 1989, until the time of the dis-positional hearing on March 9,1989.\nDuring the dispositional hearing on March 9, 1989, the juvenile court terminated and revoked L.L.\u2019s preexisting probation as \u201cunsatisfactory\u201d and ordered another year\u2019s probation with the first 14 days to be served in the juvenile detention center. The court denied counsel\u2019s request to credit L.L. for the time he served in custody pending the dispositional hearing. A motion to reconsider the disposition was heard and denied on March 20, 1989, and a timely notice of appeal was filed on April 17, 1989.\nWe do not reach the issue of whether or not L.L. was entitled to credit for the time he spent in custody prior to his dispositional hearing. L.L. completed his term of probation on March 8, 1990, three months prior to the perfection of this appeal and almost two years prior to the time this matter became \u201cready\u201d for review.\nWe agree with the State\u2019s contention that L.L.\u2019s claim is moot on the grounds that his term of probation was completed as \u201csatisfactory\u201d on March 8, 1990, and that the only remedy which could be applied to this case would be remandment for a new dispositional hearing. A question is moot when no actual rights or interests of the parties remain or when events occur which render it impossible for the reviewing court to grant effective relief to either party. (First National Bank v. Kusper (1983), 98 Ill. 2d 226, 233, 456 N.E.2d 7; Harris v. Education Officers Electoral Board of Community Consolidated School District 110 (1990), 203 Ill. App. 3d 917, 561 N.E.2d 204.) In Harris, the court determined that after the issuance of a court order where reversal can have no practical effect on the controversy, questions that arise relative to that order are moot.\nIn the present case, L.L. seeks to have the cause remanded to allow the trial court to amend the sentencing order to reflect that L.L. should have been credited for time served in custody prior to the dis-positional hearing. However, such relief would have no actual effect on the outcome of L.L.\u2019s case since he completed his term of probation as \u201csatisfactory\u201d on March 8, 1990.\nMoreover, Illinois courts have held repeatedly that when an opinion on a question of law cannot affect the parties, a court should not issue what is essentially an advisory opinion merely to establish precedent or govern future cases. (Harris, 203 Ill. App. 3d 917, 561 N.E.2d 204, citing In re Marriage of Holem (1987), 153 Ill. App. 3d 1095, 506 N.E.2d 739.) Thus, since the only remedy which could be applied to this case would be remandment for a new dispositional hearing which in no way would affect the parties, in reliance on Holem and Harris, we dismiss this appeal as moot.\nAppeal dismissed.\nBUCKLEY and O\u2019CONNOR, JJ., concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "PRESIDING JUSTICE MANNING"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Randolph N. Stone, Public Defender, of Chicago (Joseph M. Gump and Robert Guch, Assistant Public Defenders, of counsel), for appellant.",
      "Jack O\u2019Malley, State\u2019s Attorney, of Chicago (Renee Goldfarb, William D. Carroll, and Laura L. Morrison, Assistant State\u2019s Attorneys, of counsel), for the People."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "In re L.L., A Minor (The People of the State of Illinois, Appellee, v. L.L., Appellant).\nFirst District (1st Division)\nNo. 1\u201489\u20140979\nOpinion filed March 15, 1993.\nRandolph N. Stone, Public Defender, of Chicago (Joseph M. Gump and Robert Guch, Assistant Public Defenders, of counsel), for appellant.\nJack O\u2019Malley, State\u2019s Attorney, of Chicago (Renee Goldfarb, William D. Carroll, and Laura L. Morrison, Assistant State\u2019s Attorneys, of counsel), for the People."
  },
  "file_name": "1010-01",
  "first_page_order": 1030,
  "last_page_order": 1032
}