In re Gilberto G.

SUPREME COURT CASES

Laws-info.com » Cases » Illinois » 2nd District Appellate » 2007 » In re Gilberto G.

In re Gilberto G.

State: Illinois

Court: 2nd District Appellate

Docket No: 2-04-0312 & 2-05-0454 cons. NRel

Case Date: 08/07/2007

Preview:Nos. 2--04--0312 & 2--05--0454 cons. Filed: 8-7-07 ______________________________________________________________________________ IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS SECOND DISTRICT ______________________________________________________________________________ In re GILBERTO G.-P., ) Appeal from the Circuit Court ) of Boone County. A Minor ) ) No. 03--JD--44 ) (The People of the State of Illinois, ) Honorable Petitioner-Appellee, v. Gilberto G.-P., ) J. Edward Prochaska, Respondent-Appellant). ) Judge, Presiding. ______________________________________________________________________________ THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, ) Appeal from the Circuit Court ) of Boone County. ) Plaintiff-Appellee, ) ) v. ) No. 04--CF--100 ) GILBERTO G.-P., ) Honorable ) Gerald F. Grubb, Defendant-Appellant. ) Judge, Presiding. ______________________________________________________________________________ JUSTICE McLAREN delivered the opinion of the court: In these consolidated appeals, respondent/defendant, Gilberto G.-P. (defendant), appeals from the trial court's orders dismissing a petition for wardship brought against him and denying his motion to dismiss a bill of indictment. We affirm. On August 14, 2003, the State filed a petition for wardship, alleging that defendant was a delinquent minor in that he committed the offense of armed robbery (720 ILCS 5/18--2(a)(2) (West 2002)).

Nos. 2--04--0312 & 2--05--0454 cons. According to the petition, on August 8, 2003, defendant, "while carrying a firearm on his person, intentionally took property, being one black bi-fold wallet containing $60.00 United States Currency, from the person of Craig M. Garbe, by threatening the imminent use of force." The State also alleged that defendant was born on January 31, 1987, thereby alleging that defendant was 16 years old on the date of the occurrence. On January 16, 2004, defendant admitted the allegations in the petition and was willing to "concede" commitment to the Department of Corrections. The case was continued to February 2 for the creation of a social history and for a dispositional hearing. Defendant remained in custody, held by warrants in this case and in a felony case in Winnebago County. The case was continued several times for disposition, as the trial court stated that "[i]t seems to me I don't have jurisdiction to proceed further." On March 8, 2004, the trial court dismissed the petition for wardship, finding that the petition had failed to invoke the jurisdiction of the juvenile court. The State was given leave to file an information charging defendant in criminal court. Defendant's motion to reconsider was denied. A notice of appeal was filed on March 30, 2004. On April 12, 2004, the State filed an information charging defendant with armed robbery, based on the same factual allegations, and it received an indictment on February 4, 2005. Defendant filed a motion to dismiss the bill of indictment, arguing that the trial court "has lost jurisdiction pending the outcome" of the appeal arising out of juvenile court and that the felony charge in No. 04--CF--100 was barred by the double-jeopardy clause of the United States Constitution. The trial court denied the motion, and defendant filed a notice of appeal. On defendant's motion, this court consolidated the appeals in both cases.

-2-

Nos. 2--04--0312 & 2--05--0454 cons. Defendant now contends that his admission to the allegations of armed robbery in the juvenile petition for wardship, and the trial court's acceptance of the admission, bar his prosecution under the indictment for the same offense. Generally, this court utilizes an abuse of discretion standard in reviewing a trial court's ultimate ruling on a motion to dismiss charges on double-jeopardy grounds. People v. Brener, 357 Ill. App. 3d 868, 870 (2005). However, where, as here, neither the facts nor the credibility of witnesses is at issue, we address a purely legal question, and our standard of review is de novo. See Brener, 357 Ill. App. 3d at 870. The constitutional protections against double jeopardy (U.S. Const., amends. V, XIV; Ill. Const. 1970, art. I,

Download In re Gilberto G..pdf