{ "id": 257124, "name": "In re J.L.R., a Minor (The People of the State of Illinois, Petitioner-Appellee, v. J.L.R., Respondent-Appellant)", "name_abbreviation": "People v. J.L.R.", "decision_date": "1998-12-09", "docket_number": "No. 2\u201497\u20140689", "first_page": "498", "last_page": "500", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "301 Ill. App. 3d 498" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.", "id": 8837, "name": "Illinois Appellate Court" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 29, "name_long": "Illinois", "name": "Ill." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "181 Ill. 2d 24", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 821423 ], "weight": 3, "year": 1998, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "29" }, { "page": "29" }, { "page": "30" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/181/0024-01" ] }, { "cite": "285 Ill. App. 3d 310", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 1295623 ], "year": 1996, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "312" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/285/0310-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 280, "char_count": 3854, "ocr_confidence": 0.766, "pagerank": { "raw": 7.317852702137001e-08, "percentile": 0.4347934956825668 }, "sha256": "ad2c2bec40c25abe351a963ec7c1d137ea0976e25cfda75798b211df6c84f027", "simhash": "1:a7221a4c7733b09e", "word_count": 634 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T19:13:21.929948+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "In re J.L.R., a Minor (The People of the State of Illinois, Petitioner-Appellee, v. J.L.R., Respondent-Appellant)." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "PRESIDING JUSTICE GEIGER\ndelivered the opinion of the court:\nThe sole issue presented in this appeal is whether Supreme Court Rule 605(b) (145 Ill. 2d R. 605(b)) applies to juvenile delinquency adjudications. We hold that it does.\nThe relevant facts are easily stated and not in dispute. In a petition for adjudication of wardship, the State alleged that the respondent, J.L.R., was delinquent for unlawfully possessing with an intent to deliver more than 1 gram but less than 15 grams of a substance containing cocaine (720 ILCS 570/401(c)(2) (West 1996)). Pursuant to a fully negotiated plea agreement, the respondent admitted to the offense alleged in the petition and the State recommended a disposition of 30 days in jail, 70 hours of community service, probation until the respondent\u2019s nineteenth birthday, and drug and alcohol counseling as recommended by the probation department. As part of the same negotiation, the respondent also agreed to plead guilty to one pending adult offense in exchange for the State\u2019s dismissal of another pending adult offense. The trial court accepted the plea agreement, entered a dispositional order containing the terms set forth above, and concluded the proceedings without admonishing the respondent as set forth in Supreme Court Rule 605(b). This timely appeal followed.\nOn appeal, the respondent argues that the trial court erred by failing to admonish him in accordance with Supreme Court Rule 605(b). He therefore requests that we remand this cause to the trial court so that he may be admonished in accordance with Rule 605(b) and given the opportunity to file a motion to withdraw his guilty plea if he so desires.\nSupreme Court Rule 660(a) (134 Ill. 2d R. 660(a)) provides that \u201c[ajppeals from final judgments in delinquent minor proceedings, except as otherwise specifically provided, shall be governed by the rules applicable to criminal cases.\u201d In In re R.C.K., 285 Ill. App. 3d 310, 312 (1996), this court held that, under Rule 660(a), Supreme Court Rule 604(d) (145 Ill. 2d R. 604(d)) applies to juvenile delinquency proceedings. Recently, discussing the relationship between Rules 604(d) and 605(b), the Illinois Supreme Court stated:\n\u201cRules 604(d) and 605(b) are meant to work together. [Citation.] This court requires strict compliance with Rule 604(d) by a defendant. [Citation.] A necessary antecedent, however, is that the defendant be given the admonitions prescribed by Rule 605(b) to advise him of those requirements.\u201d (Emphasis added.) People v. Jamison, 181 Ill. 2d 24, 29 (1998).\nThis statement makes perfect sense, as the admonitions set forth in Rule 605(b) advise a defendant who has pleaded guilty of his right to appeal and of his obligations under Rule 604(d). See Jamison, 181 Ill. 2d at 29. Given both the supreme court\u2019s pronouncement on the synergy between Rules 604(d) and 605(b) and this court\u2019s holding that Rule 604(d) applies to juvenile delinquency adjudications, we conclude that Rule 605(b) likewise applies to juvenile delinquency adjudications.\nAccordingly, because the respondent was not admonished in accordance with Rule 605(b), we remand this cause to the trial court so that the respondent can be given Rule 605(b) admonitions and allowed the opportunity to withdraw his guilty plea if he so desires. See Jamison, 181 Ill. 2d at 30.\nCause remanded with directions.\nBOWMAN and HUTCHINSON, JJ., concur.", "type": "majority", "author": "PRESIDING JUSTICE GEIGER" } ], "attorneys": [ "G. Joseph Weller and Kathleen J. Hamill, both of State Appellate Defender\u2019s Office, of Elgin, for appellant.", "Roger T. Russell, State\u2019s Attorney, of Belvidere (Martin E Moltz and Diane L. Campbell, both of State\u2019s Attorneys Appellate Prosecutor\u2019s Office, of counsel), for the People." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "In re J.L.R., a Minor (The People of the State of Illinois, Petitioner-Appellee, v. J.L.R., Respondent-Appellant).\nSecond District\nNo. 2\u201497\u20140689\nOpinion filed December 9, 1998.\nG. Joseph Weller and Kathleen J. Hamill, both of State Appellate Defender\u2019s Office, of Elgin, for appellant.\nRoger T. Russell, State\u2019s Attorney, of Belvidere (Martin E Moltz and Diane L. Campbell, both of State\u2019s Attorneys Appellate Prosecutor\u2019s Office, of counsel), for the People." }, "file_name": "0498-01", "first_page_order": 516, "last_page_order": 518 }