{
  "id": 3404117,
  "name": "In re ERNESTO PULIDO, a Minor.-(THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Petitioner-Appellee, v. ERNESTO PULIDO, Respondent-Appellant.)",
  "name_abbreviation": "People v. Pulido",
  "decision_date": "1977-11-21",
  "docket_number": "No. 77-1592",
  "first_page": "405",
  "last_page": "408",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "54 Ill. App. 3d 405"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "364 N.E.2d 61",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "67 Ill. 2d 43",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. 2d",
      "case_ids": [
        5811214
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-2d/67/0043-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "237 N.E.2d 495",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "40 Ill. 2d 62",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. 2d",
      "case_ids": [
        2855116
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-2d/40/0062-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "277 N.E.2d 878",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "year": 1968,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "50 Ill. 2d 136",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. 2d",
      "case_ids": [
        2912891
      ],
      "year": 1968,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-2d/50/0136-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "342 N.E.2d 803",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "35 Ill. App. 3d 816",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d",
      "case_ids": [
        5305101
      ],
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "820"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app-3d/35/0816-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "463 F.2d 530",
      "category": "reporters:federal",
      "reporter": "F.2d",
      "case_ids": [
        1344065
      ],
      "year": 1976,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/f2d/463/0530-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "293 N.E.2d 228",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "155 Ind. App. 484",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ind. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        12166724
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ind-app/155/0484-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "53 A.L.R. 3d 848",
      "category": "reporters:specialty",
      "reporter": "A.L.R. 3d",
      "year": 1973,
      "opinion_index": 0
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 349,
    "char_count": 5274,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.893,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08,
      "percentile": 0.09497677277710014
    },
    "sha256": "26eea0dfc0109e44499430d2448765e3e88c8a76ebb318cbaef3e526d2c0a66d",
    "simhash": "1:692aa51e0b58bb94",
    "word_count": 858
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:56:34.806209+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "In re ERNESTO PULIDO, a Minor.\u2014(THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Petitioner-Appellee, v. ERNESTO PULIDO, Respondent-Appellant.)"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. JUSTICE O\u2019CONNOR\ndelivered the opinion of the court:\nThe minor-respondent, Ernesto Pulido, was charged in a petition for adjudication of wardship with the offense of murder (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1975, ch. 38, par. 9 \u2014 1(a)(2)). Respondent was adjudged delinquent based on this offense in the circuit court of Cook County, Juvenile Division, and on October 6, 1977, was committed to the custody of the Department of Corrections. Respondent has filed a notice of appeal and a motion in this court seeking bail pending disposition of his appeal. The question presented at this time is whether consideration of release on bond pending appeal is applicable to a juvenile under such circumstances.\nA juvenile has no constitutional right to release on bond pending his appeal from a determination of delinquency. However, a minor may seek release depending on the respective statutory provisions. See Annot., 53 A.L.R. 3d 848 (1973); In re Pisello (1973), 155 Ind. App. 484, 293 N.E.2d 228.\nIn the present case, the record shows that the circuit court rejected respondent\u2019s request for release on bail pending appeal because the court believed it was without authority to consider the matter. Such position is supported by case decision interpreting Illinois law. (United States ex rel. Burton v. Coughlin (7th Cir. 1972), 463 F.2d 530; see In re Beasley (1976), 35 Ill. App. 3d 816, 820, 342 N.E.2d 803.) There is no provision in the Juvenile Court Act which affords a minor the possibility of release on bond pending appeal, and section 5 \u2014 10(2) of the Juvenile Court Act (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1975, ch. 37, par. 705 \u2014 10(2) provides that \u201cWhen the court commits a minor to the Department of Corrections, it shall order him conveyed forthwith to the appropriate reception station or other place designated by the Department of Corrections* * *.\u201d This provision clearly suggests that the delinquent minor not be released on bond.\nHowever, Supreme Court Rule 660(a), effective October 1, 1975, provides:\n\u201cAppeals from final judgments in delinquent minor proceedings, except as otherwise specifically provided, shall be governed by the rules applicable to criminal cases.\u201d (Emphasis added.) Ill. Rev. Stat. 1975, ch. 110A, par. 660(a).\nSupreme court Rule 609 in pertinent part, which applies to the appeal of criminal cases, provides:\n\u201c(b) * * * [T]he defendant may be admitted to bail and the sentence or condition of imprisonment or periodic imprisonment stayed, with or without bond, by a judge of the trial or reviewing court.\nsee\n(c) On appeals in other cases the judgment or order may be stayed by a judge of the trial or reviewing court, with or without bond.* * *\u201d Ill. Rev. Stat. 1975, ch. 110A, par. 609(b)(c).\nRespondent urges that when Supreme Court Rules 660 and 609 are interpreted in conjunction they permit consideration of release on bond pending appeal of the finding of delinquency and his commitment pursuant thereto. If respondent\u2019s position is correct concerning Rules 660 and 609, these rules would supersede a contrary provision of the Juvenile Court Act. People v. Taylor (1972), 50 Ill. 2d 136, 277 N.E.2d 878; People ex rel. Stamos v. Jones (1968), 40 Ill. 2d 62, 237 N.E.2d 495.\nRespondent cites In re St. Louis (1977), 67 Ill. 2d 43, 364 N.E.2d 61, in support of his position. There the supreme court held that a minor\u2019s identification records could be expunged if no further proceedings occurred, even though no specific provision of the Juvenile Court Act authorized expungement. While that decision equated a juvenile\u2019s right to expungement with an adult\u2019s statutory right under resembling circumstances, we find the St. Louis decision is distinguishable because in the present case section 5 \u2014 10(2) of the Juvenile Court Act proscribes the application of bond to a minor who is found delinquent.\nThere remains the question of the pertinence of Supreme Court Rule 660. While that rule generally applies criminal appeals rules to delinquency matters, it excepts criminal appellate procedures if another procedure is \u201cotherwise specifically provided.\u201d This language is expansive and is not limited solely in reference to other Supreme Court Rules. Rather, we conclude that if statutes specifically adopt a differing procedure, then the criminal appellate rules are not to be applied. Accordingly, Supreme Court Rule 609(b) does not supersede section 5\u2014 10(2) of the Juvenile Court Act.\nRespondent\u2019s motion to set bond pending appeal is denied.\nMotion denied.\nGOLDBERG, P. J., and McGLOON, J., concur.\nSection 5 \u2014 8\u20145 of the Unified Code of Corrections (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1975, ch. 38, par. 1005 \u2014 8\u20145) concerns commitment of adult offenders to the custody of the sheriff or Department of Corrections after judgment is entered. The language of section 5 \u2014 8\u20145 is not as unqualified as section 5 \u2014 10(2) of the Juvenile Court Act concerning when custody shall be attained.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. JUSTICE O\u2019CONNOR"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Sam Adam, of Chicago, for appellant.",
      "Bernard Carey, State\u2019s Attorney, of Chicago (Lee T. Hettinger and James V. Marcanti, Assistant State\u2019s Attorneys, of counsel), for the People."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "In re ERNESTO PULIDO, a Minor.\u2014(THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Petitioner-Appellee, v. ERNESTO PULIDO, Respondent-Appellant.)\nFirst District (1st Division)\nNo. 77-1592\nOpinion filed November 21, 1977.\nSam Adam, of Chicago, for appellant.\nBernard Carey, State\u2019s Attorney, of Chicago (Lee T. Hettinger and James V. Marcanti, Assistant State\u2019s Attorneys, of counsel), for the People."
  },
  "file_name": "0405-01",
  "first_page_order": 427,
  "last_page_order": 430
}