{ "id": 2641463, "name": "In re GORDON STEWART, a Minor; (THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Petitioner-Appellee, v. GORDON STEWART, Respondent-Appellant.)", "name_abbreviation": "People v. Stewart", "decision_date": "1976-10-07", "docket_number": "No. 62171", "first_page": "945", "last_page": "947", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "42 Ill. App. 3d 945" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.", "id": 8837, "name": "Illinois Appellate Court" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 29, "name_long": "Illinois", "name": "Ill." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "347 N.E.2d 23", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "37 Ill. App. 3d 790", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 2715635 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/37/0790-01" ] }, { "cite": "395 U.S. 238", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 1771759 ], "weight": 3, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/395/0238-01" ] }, { "cite": "86 S. Ct. 1922", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "S. Ct.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "16 L. Ed. 2d 1013", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "L. Ed. 2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "355 N.E.2d 570", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "42 Ill. App. 3d 129", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 2642011 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/42/0129-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 355, "char_count": 5096, "ocr_confidence": 0.877, "pagerank": { "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08, "percentile": 0.08304596136685961 }, "sha256": "7bac46b9021dd7c677c6718fb6592b2e630945a479cb83ff3beec52bb28f9bb8", "simhash": "1:3a75547b4ff1fe3a", "word_count": 854 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T15:00:19.600233+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "In re GORDON STEWART, a Minor. \u2014 (THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Petitioner-Appellee, v. GORDON STEWART, Respondent-Appellant.)" ], "opinions": [ { "text": "Mr. JUSTICE DEMPSEY\ndelivered the opinion of the court:\nGordon Stewart, a juvenile, appeals from an order committing him to the Department of Corrections, Juvenile Division, after he supposedly admitted committing a battery. Two issues are raised in his appeal: (1) that the court violated due process when it accepted his admission; and (2) that the court lacked jurisdiction to sentence him because it never adjudicated him a ward of the court. The State concedes that there never was an explicit adjudication as required by section 4 \u2014 -8 of the Juvenile Court Act (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1973, ch. 37, par. 704 \u2014 8; In re Franklin (1976), 42 Ill. App. 3d 129, 355 N.E.2d 570), but it contends that this requires only a remand limited to establishing the court\u2019s wardship. If the lack of an adjudication of wardship were the only error, remandment would be the proper disposition of this appeal. However, the first error alleged \u2014 abuse of due process \u2014 necessitates reversal as well as remandment.\nIn October 1974 a petition for adjudication of wardship was filed alleging that Stewart had committed a robbery and was delinquent. Nine days later a hearing was held on the petition. The Public Defender was appointed counsel for the respondent and the State\u2019s Attorney was granted leave to amend the petition to charge battery rather than robbery. The following dialogue then occurred:\nTHE COURT: \u201cYoung man, were you advised of your legal rights when the lawyer talked to you?\u201d\nSTEWART: \u201cYes.\u201d\nTHE COURT: \u201cWere you advised that you had a right to deny that you struck somebody? That you have a right to a trial in court, and that you have a right to have your lawyer, the Public Defender, cross examine all State\u2019s witnesses in open court. That you are presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. That you have a right to have the State\u2019s Attorney prove his case beyond a reasonable doubt. Did you commit a battery? Did you hit somebody?\u201d\nSTEWART: \u201cYes.\u201d\nTHE COURT: \u201cAre you admitting this of your own free will?\u201d STEWART: \u201cYes.\u201d\nTHE COURT: \u201cWithout promises?\u201d\nSTEWART: \u201cYes.\u201d\nTHE COURT: \u201cYou understand, I could send you away to the Department of Corrections?\u201d\nSTEWART: No response.\nTHE COURT: \u201cVoluntary admission to the amended complaint.\u201d\nThe court then set a date for the dispositional hearing at which time the defendant was adjudged delinquent and committed to the Department of Corrections, Juvenile Division.\nA proceeding to determine whether a juvenile is delinquent is subject to due process of law (In re Gault (1967), 387 U.S.l, 16 L. Ed. 2d 1013, 86 S. Ct. 1922) which requires that a guilty plea be intelligently and voluntarily made. (Boykin v. Alabama (1969), 395 U.S. 238, 23 L. Ed. 2d 274, 89 S. Ct. 1709.) This rule underlies the decision in several recent appellate court cases which hold that a juvenile\u2019s constitutional rights are violated when the trial court accepts his admission to a charge without properly admonishing him as to his rights and the consequences of his admission. E.g. In re Burke (1976), 37 Ill. App. 3d 790, 347 N.E.2d 23.\nStewart was 14 at the time of the hearing. His attorney was appointed only moments before he underwent interrogation by the judge. Although he responded affirmatively when the court asked him whether his lawyer had advised him of his legal rights, the record does not disclose that he was given a copy of the amended petition or had its contents, including the nature of the amended charge, explained to him. The court did not wait for a response when it asked Stewart if he understood that he could be sent to the Department of Corrections, nor did the court specifically admonish him that he could be committed to the Department until he became 21, a sentence of 7 years. (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1973, ch. 37, par. 705 \u2014 11.) He was not told that he had the right against self-incrimination and the right to remain silent altogether. Finally, and most importantly, it is uncertain what Stewart admitted. The court asked a series of questions without giving him time to reply to each one. It was only after a string of questions had been put to him and the final question \u201cDid you hit somebody?\u201d asked, that Stewart answered \u201cYes.\u201d Whether he was responding affirmatively only to the last, some, or all of the inquiries is unclear. Subjecting a juvenile to a salvo of questions without giving him time to reflect upon them or to answer them was a violation of due process.\nThe order committing Stewart to the Department of Corrections is reversed and the case remanded for proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.\nReversed and remanded.\nMEJDA, P. J., and McNAMARA, J., concur.", "type": "majority", "author": "Mr. JUSTICE DEMPSEY" } ], "attorneys": [ "James Geis and Victoria J. Meyers, both of State Appellate Defender\u2019s Office, of Chicago, for appellant.", "Bernard Carey, State\u2019s Attorney, of Chicago (Patrick W. O\u2019Brien, Assistant State\u2019s Attorney, of counsel), for the People." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "In re GORDON STEWART, a Minor. \u2014 (THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Petitioner-Appellee, v. GORDON STEWART, Respondent-Appellant.)\nFirst District (3rd Division)\nNo. 62171\nOpinion filed October 7, 1976.\nJames Geis and Victoria J. Meyers, both of State Appellate Defender\u2019s Office, of Chicago, for appellant.\nBernard Carey, State\u2019s Attorney, of Chicago (Patrick W. O\u2019Brien, Assistant State\u2019s Attorney, of counsel), for the People." }, "file_name": "0945-01", "first_page_order": 975, "last_page_order": 977 }