______________________________________________________________________________________________

PRESIDING JUSTICE McCULLOUGH delivered the opinion of thecourt:

Respondent minor, N.S., appeals from the orders of thecircuit court of Adams County finding her a delinquent minor andplacing her on four years' probation conditioned on serving 30days' detention in the Adams County Youth Home. The issue onappeal is whether the juvenile record should be modified to reflectthat defendant was found to have committed only one attempt(aggravated battery). We affirm.

On April 17, 2000, the State filed a petition foradjudication of wardship alleging N.S. to be delinquent for havingcommitted the offense of theft (720 ILCS 5/16-1(a)(1)(A) (West1998)) of a hypodermic syringe from the Quincy Clinic. On May 11,2000, the State amended the petition to allege two counts ofattempt (aggravated battery) (720 ILCS 5/8-4(a), 12-4 (West 1998)). Both counts alleged that N.S. took a syringe filled with chemicalsto Payson High School intending to inject or stab Casey Steffens.Count II alleged attempt (aggravated battery) based on the offensebeing committed on public property (720 ILCS 5/12-4(b)(8) (West1998)), and count III alleged attempt (aggravated battery) based onan intent to do great bodily harm to Steffens (720 ILCS 5/12-4(a)(West 1998)).

N.S. admitted the allegation of theft. Following ahearing, the trial court found both counts of attempt (aggravatedbattery) to have been proved. The evidence established that N.S.brought the chemical-filled syringe to school intending to stabSteffens with it.

Here, the State does not contest that, had N.S. beenconvicted of the attempt offenses as an adult, she would have beensentenced on only one of those under the one-act, one-crimeanalysis adopted in People v. King, 66 Ill. 2d 551, 560-66, 363N.E.2d 838, 841-45 (1977) (concluding that prejudice occurs when adefendant is convicted of more than one offense arising from thesame physical act). See People v. Rodriguez, 169 Ill. 2d 183, 186,661 N.E.2d 305, 306 (1996) ("[m]ultiple convictions are improper ifthey are based on precisely the same physical act"); People v.Crespo, No. 86556, slip op. at 3-9 (February 16, 2001), ___ Ill. 2d___, ___, ___ N.E.2d ___, ___ (applying the King rule to separatecounts charging defendant with offenses arising out of the sameconduct under different theories of culpability). Instead, theState argues that the one-act, one-crime analysis should not beapplied in a juvenile proceeding.

In In re W.C., 167 Ill. 2d 307, 342-43, 657 N.E.2d 908,925-26 (1995), in spite of the issue not being raised in the trialcourt, the Supreme Court of Illinois applied that rule in ajuvenile delinquency context "to avoid the possibility of futureconfusion or adverse effect to respondent." Defendant asks that,similar to what the supreme court did in W.C., we modify thedispositional order to reflect that it was based on a singleoffense of attempt (aggravated battery). The State correctly notesthat, unlike W.C., in this case the dispositional order does notspecifically refer to any offense that N.S. was found to havecommitted. Irrespective of the fact that the State providedevidence from which the trial court could find proved the allegations of multiple offenses, there is but a single adjudication ofdelinquency and no resultant prejudice to the minor. See In reMareno, 43 Ill. App. 3d 556, 558, 357 N.E.2d 592, 594 (1976). Inaddition, there is only one dispositional order that does notsubject the minor to a greater punishment by reason of a finding ofmultiple offenses. See In re S.D.S., 103 Ill. App. 3d 1008, 1015,431 N.E.2d 759, 764-65 (1982).

In W.C., the corrective action was necessitated by theimproper inclusion in the dispositional order committing the minorto the Department of Corrections of references to two counts offirst degree murder in spite of the trial court's observation thatthey had merged for a finding of delinquency. W.C., 167 Ill. App.3d at 342, 657 N.E.2d at 926. Here, even though the trial courtfound in the adjudicatory order that multiple allegations ofdelinquency had been proved by the State, the dispositional orderdoes not refer to any of the charges and avoids the technical errorthat occurred in W.C. The dispositional order in this case doesnot state that it was imposed on multiple offenses that arose fromthe same conduct. No modification or correction is needed.

The judgment of the circuit court of Adams County isaffirmed.

Affirmed.

COOK and STEIGMANN, JJ., concur.