{
  "id": 5382444,
  "name": "In re CARL B. HARDMAN, a Minor.-(THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Petitioner-Appellee, v. CARL B. HARDMAN, Respondent-Appellant.)",
  "name_abbreviation": "People v. Hardman",
  "decision_date": "1976-05-26",
  "docket_number": "No. 61787",
  "first_page": "126",
  "last_page": "128",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "39 Ill. App. 3d 126"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 355,
    "char_count": 6046,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.873,
    "sha256": "8af60667f4dec47fd0f6c525b41cd78853fd51662214791e8a76cb22895cbf83",
    "simhash": "1:fb68f0eb20789cb4",
    "word_count": 1037
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T15:44:11.874495+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "In re CARL B. HARDMAN, a Minor.\u2014(THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Petitioner-Appellee, v. CARL B. HARDMAN, Respondent-Appellant.)"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. JUSTICE DIERINGER\ndelivered the opinion of the court:\nThe minor respondent, Carl B. Hardman, appeals from an order of the Circuit Court of Cook County finding him to be in violation of probation, for which he was committed to the Department of Corrections.\nThe issues on appeal are whether the respondent was given notice of the proceedings against him and whether it was error to commit him to the Department of Corrections.\nPursuant to a petition for adjudication of wardship, the minor respondent was found delinquent on October 9, 1974, in that he had committed the offense of theft in violation of section 16 \u2014 1(a)(1) of the Illinois Criminal Code (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1973, ch. 38, par. 16 \u2014 1(a)(1)). A petition for supplemental relief was filed on November 4,1974, charging that the respondent was uncontrollable in violation of section 2 \u2014 3(a) of the Juvenile Court Act (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1973, ch. 37, par. 702 \u2014 3(a)). At a hearing for probation violation on November 21, 1974, the court found the respondent to be in violation of probation and committed him to the Department of Corrections.\nThe respondent first contends he was not given notice that he was charged with violation of probation for using drugs and was therefore denied due process of law. The transcript of proceedings indicates that both the State and the respondent\u2019s appointed counsel were going forward on the basis of probation violation:\n\u201cTHE COURT: Let her answer. Are you going on violation of probation or are you going on a straight trial, denial, supplemental or trial?\nMR. HARRIS [Assistant State\u2019s Attorney]: It is on violation.\nMISS PLACEK [Assistant Public Defender]: Violation.\u201d\nThe respondent\u2019s mother testified he went berserk and had to be restrained, that he hit her in the chest and hit his sister in the stomach. She testified he was \u201cdizzy off of pills\u201d and had used drugs on several occasions.\nThe respondent testified he might have been in a drugged state when he attacked his mother and sister, and stated he had no memory of what happened. On cross-examination he testified he used drugs as regularly as he could afford to.\nThe court then made the following statements in reaching its finding of violation of probation:\n\u201cTHE COURT: * 0 * Through his own admission, he said he took drugs, isn\u2019t that a violation of probation. He admitted it on direct examination.\n#\n[The supplemental petition] doesn\u2019t allege battery. It says he was uncontrollable, could not be controlled by the mother in what he did. He, himself, says when he takes the dmgs, he is numb. I think he convicted himself of the finding of violation. There is no question. He uses dmgs, he said he was numb after he takes these drugs. The mother testified that they had to tie his hands. He makes admission on the stand that he is using dmgs, which is a direct violation of his probation.\u201d\nWe believe the court\u2019s finding of violation of probation appears to have been based on both the testimony of the mother with respect to his going berserk and the respondent\u2019s own testimony regarding the use of drugs. The court\u2019s statements noting the respondent\u2019s admissions with respect to drug usage were not violative of any notice requirements of due process.\nThe respondent also contends the Juvenile Court is without jurisdiction to incarcerate a minor adjudicated to be in need of supervision and it was error to commit him to the Department of Corrections.\nThe record shows the respondent was committed to the Department of Corrections for probation violation subsequent to a conviction for theft. It is also clear that any delinquent adjudged to be a ward of the court may be committed to the Department of Corrections. Section 5 \u2014 2(1) of the Juvenile Court Act (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1973, ch. 37, par. 705 \u2014 2(1)) provides that a minor found to be delinquent may be committed to the Department of Corrections under section 5 \u2014 10. That section (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1973, ch. 37, par. 705 \u2014 10) provides as follows:\n\u201c(1) When any delinquent has been adjudged a ward of the court under this Act, the court may commit him to the Department of Corrections if it finds that (a) his parents, guardian or legal custodian are unfit or are unable, for some reason other than financial circumstances alone, to care for, protect, train or discipline the minor, or are unwilling to do so, and (b) the best interests of the minor and the public will not be served by placement under Section 5 \u2014 7.\u201d\nIt is clear from the testimony at the hearing that the parents are unable to discipline the respondent, and the social investigation report demonstrates that alternative placement under section 5 \u2014 7 (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1973, ch. 37, par. 705 \u2014 7) would benefit neither society nor the respondent. The respondent\u2019s probation officer, Mr. Lennox, stated: \u2022\nI made all the attempts to get him into a rehabilitation type place but the boy refused. He said he would not attend.\n# # t*\nI don\u2019t think he would work out in a drug abuse program. I mean I don\u2019t think there is a drug abuse program that exists that has the limits that this boy needs and that he would not run away from. He has indicated to me again that he has pushed drugs and he does have money hidden away from these drugs, that he buys new drugs with.\u201d\nWe find the court had the jurisdiction to commit the respondent to the Department of Corrections and that he acted in the best interests of the minor and society when he did so.\nFor these reasons, the judgment of the Circuit Court of Cook County is affirmed.\nAffirmed'.-\nADESKO and BURMAN, JJ., concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. JUSTICE DIERINGER"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "James J. Doherty, Public Defender, of Chicago (Peter T. Woods and Suzanne M. Xinos, Assistant Public Defenders, of counsel), for appellant.",
      "Bernard Carey, State\u2019s Attorney, of Chicago (Laurence J. Bolon and William J. Stacy, Assistant State\u2019s Attorneys, of counsel), for the People."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "In re CARL B. HARDMAN, a Minor.\u2014(THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Petitioner-Appellee, v. CARL B. HARDMAN, Respondent-Appellant.)\nFirst District (4th Division)\nNo. 61787\nOpinion filed May 26, 1976.\nJames J. Doherty, Public Defender, of Chicago (Peter T. Woods and Suzanne M. Xinos, Assistant Public Defenders, of counsel), for appellant.\nBernard Carey, State\u2019s Attorney, of Chicago (Laurence J. Bolon and William J. Stacy, Assistant State\u2019s Attorneys, of counsel), for the People."
  },
  "file_name": "0126-01",
  "first_page_order": 154,
  "last_page_order": 156
}