justice or honors my name is veronica telegram alevi i am a cook county assistant state's attorney representing the people of the state of illinois in this matter we brought this appeal before this court because the trial court incorrectly bounded the juvenile and separation of powers equal protection and due process grounds an appeal without responding at times to justify the trial court's ruling also tries to shield it from review by claiming that the issues are now mo according to respondents the two thousand and fourteen amendments to the supervision statute remove the provision and therefore make it unnecessary to address his ability to respond in his wrong to two thousand and fourteen amendments retain the pre filing state's attorney approved provision which is at issue here the only difference in the two thousand and fourteen statute is the addition of a post finding section that allows a trial charge to continue subsequent violations that were filed in this case so neither of his case with do not terminate is still on supervision and the two thousand and fourteen amendments to nad render the issues  instant version or the two thousand and fourteen version the appropriation is found identical form and therefore the issues before this court are definitely not moot turning to the constitutional as the trial court as well as the minor and the parents so yes it does give the state authority to prevent in in cases prevent supervision but it does so in doing so  the legislature is protecting the role of the state's attorney ten issue to manage cases because a continuous under supervision could very likely would successful result in  already rejected that and t v and the two thousand and fourteen amendments do not provide any basis for this court to revisit much less reverse t w yes you question we use the term supervision the statute is t supervision and in the t w case this court look to the phillips case and seems to say that the prefunding supervision is more like diversion as the  preventing stage would result in an outright dismissal the case well if the after the banning the minor would have to move to have his delinquency vacated if he successfully completed supervision so there are there are distinctions so before the pre planning the my responders placed on supervision whatever that means and if there's a violation and the case because the trial could be a finding of not doing that as one of the supervision at the prefunding stage to be the norm but i wanted it to be reserved for those miners that would be the most most successful in completing supervision adult to pander facing a felony is not eligible for supervision under the adult statute so there is no adult class to compare to if adults are minors were similarly situated in this context then an adult protections that a juvenile has including supervision prior to finding of guilt and in felony cases contrary to adult supervision stature but even assuming there is a view can respond here can meet  threshold burden requiring the states are trained to consent to continuance under supervision is rationally related in furthering the juvenile court at purpose and goals as i stated by requiring the consent of both the  and the state's attorney the provision ensures that supervision will be given to those miners who are most likely to succeed therefore it strikes a proper balance between identifying a suitable candidate for supervision and at the same time those who are not suitable a person provision and therefore protecting the public there's just simply no equal protection violation here finally with respect to due process the facts of this case prove  there was no due process violation here the prosecutor's objection was not arbitrary rather the decision was objectively reasonable based on that individual assessment of respondent and his circumstances when objecting to supervision the prosecutor knew the defendant had a violent past it at the age of twelve two years before this case he was arrested for aggravated battery with a weapon other than a firearm that case was screamed out of court the n s a also knew that this matter and about two unrelated felonies committed with us within a three three weeks of each other the first was possession of cocaine charge where related to this minor they responded they were given with respect to due process is that there was in any meaningful meaningful discretion done by the state's attorney's office so maybe in this particular case you can go say it's confronted with a minor who would be a good candidate for supervision best probably is reduced to a misdemeanor and supervision is afford it that way when that if they have minor violates he also gets the added benefit of only being a the state reduces the childish a misdemeanor and then there's a finding no i'm saying ok the practice is you reduce it to mr minor and a minor is given supervision however let's say the minor does not succeed in supervision he would only be adjudicated a misdemeanor therefore he gets the added benefit of that therefore there's nothing arbitrary or unfair about the practice and that is in light of the history of this particular minor with reasonable anyway my first argument would be that the trial court's decision and that really was not based on a blanket policy it was based on assessment of this case you know so that would be my first question and if you look at the record and the motion to reconsider by the state's attorney it was based on the individual assessment of the minor here so there is no policy and there is no evidence that in this case a prosecutors were correct including that due to his age the respondent did have potential for rehabilitation but they were also correct in recognizing that supervision was not suitable because a writer was not provided the necessary structure support our credibility that he needed especially at home which is made evident in the socialist occasion the over the evidence overwhelming rebuts the trial courts fighting that the people's objection was arbitrary whether t w and the constitutionality of the supervision statute is sound the trial court found the state veto power supriya of supervision statute which is five six fifteen unconstitutional or three bases separation of powers equal protection and due process are the separation of powers argument is that the trial court found that the supervision statute in the addicts treatment under what has become known as task this is people versus phillips right hundred seventy seven phillips involved in unsuccessful separation of powers challenge the requirement that if a person was already on probation or parole that the drug addicts and their treatment drug addiction is recognized by the legislature to be a disease requires treatment not punishment it is a condition that can be cured only if the person is a good candidate for treatment and this determination is best left to trained professionals in fact in this case just a shark or judge sharky asked the probation officer to evaluate pericope for drugs and only then did he withhold judgment as to whether drug counseling would be part of his sentence deferred to the expertise of the probation officer as is appropriate in philips so essentially you have the treatment of the disease by professionals who are trained in that trained to treat that disease versus an adverse party litigation the problem with the app with the analogy between between philips and the supervision statute is the roles and responsibilities of the respective parties are so divergent the state's goal in the the punish the minor is the problem accountable for wrongdoing and as these court as well acknowledged in previous occasions with respect to the nine hundred ninety nine amendments to the juvenile court act the juvenile court at that has become much more cold court held its supervision as the judicial act of disposition now supervision operates like a sentence because of the way that it's impose and how in the process that works in a plea contacts which is what we have here supervision only comes after there's been a charge or a view of discovery discussion between the parties of the evaluation as to whether to take the case to trial or not and then there are the admonishments that the trial court has to give the minor to determine that he recognizes the rights that he's giving up trial incrimination the right to plead not guilty in the right to a trial and then the court determines whether a crime has been committed and the minor actually committed and it is only at this point that the prospect of supervision supervision purports to be a continuance in substance in reality it constitutes a final judgment now the state's argument that placing someone under supervision is the equivalent of initiating or managing the criminal litigation does not ring true because supervision arises only after there has been an initiation all the case management is complete the states decide to go forward with the charge the judge has a german weather has merit and then fixes an appropriate disposition of the con version that's involved here involves not only the consent of the state's attorney but of any other party including the minor goes on that augment in favor of an argument that says this is not a sentencing procedure because how can a minor or how kind of a dependent judgment of the court and relieve the state of its burden of proof so that the consent provision in the juvenile supervision statute i don't think is that much different than asking the asking to and in a regular criminal case o if not actually because judges and defense attorneys are smart enough to read between the lines and know that if they if the state is going to object to supervision that they can just take the case to trial after stipulative bench trial and reach the same result in a factory in in t w which is courtship reexamining this court also acknowledged that if a probation officer did not want to give treatment that the judge could work around to make sure part of the probation that was given so i believe as a practical matter this issue is will not come before this court again but i also think that even the part of the new statu misguided and when you look at what the purpose is in the roles of the parties were with respect to a probation officer who is treating a drug addict versus a state's attorney who is really wants to win and is really fighting to hold now and i certain i did not mean to imply that what i meant is the way the probation officer is acting and dealing with this case is the same with same dealing with the minor approbation contacts versus supervision that's differences between what because i believe a trial court is a more appropriate party to make that determination state's attorneys are subject to more political pressure the courts are subject to political pressure too but say sternness are subject to more political pressure to be tough on crime and to aggressively prosecute cases and i believe that that type of focus if as much as it can be removed from the process especially for a minor especially for supervision and if it's a good idea to do so adult system but the point is the perspective that this court needs look at it is are these two is an adult eligible for supervision and a juvenile eligible for supervision the other car was eligible for supervision the state veto power applied to him but it would not apply to an adult that was eligible for supervision so that is so they are similarly situated in that respect so now we move on to is  rational basis for this distinction and the juvenile court act makes very clear in many places that in a having its own equal protection types statute in five one zero three five one zero one preparing  three that juveniles are to receive all the same procedural protections as adults unless they are granted greater protections so there is no rational basis to treat juveniles an adult a juvenile more  for supervision and a juvenile is eligible for supervision and there's the only difference between them is the state has a veto power in the a juvenile who's eligible for supervision but not the adult who is eligible for supervision it's not as good a case as the last process would be would be as applied and with respect to justice thomas case justice thomas question about what's your blanket policy i just refer you to the record are two page twenty one and are one page seventy five those are the two places in the record that i believe that the state indicates that it does have a blanket policy is objecting to probation for all felony juvenile cases  it to a misdemeanor is that still a policy or jacketing to supervision and all felony patients well i don't i think that the record reflects that in in in candor  compelling and interesting legislative record of that the reason why the juvenile if you don't provision was added to the juvenile supervision statute was because richard daley brought a bill to the legislature because he didn't like the way that cook county judges were broached whether the minor was could get supervision is a no can't get supervision it's a felony and then later that was the first instance and then they deserve it on that page just the statement by the a three i believe so and then the second the second manners objection based on a felony and a lot of other things to do not support a blanket policy the record is clear that the said that state's attorney below objected because the if the minor had committed to felonies in a close period of time and looked at to the nature of those felonies and aggravated battery of a peace officer and selling crack cocaine in the middle of the street those were the basis is for the objections some of the other things they were considered additionally supervision at the prefunding stage is not a judicial sentence it's more like more like a diversion there is no therefore it comes into the preview of the state's attorney's initiation and management of the cases at the prefunding stage once the finding of guilt than it is a satins and then it becomes with goes into the province of the trial court additionally another difference between the pre supervision and the call supervision and the pole supervision the trial court is required to make some requisite findings is required to find that the minor is not likely to commit further crimes trial court is required to find it's a minor in the public would be best served if the minor were not receive a criminal record and they would be in the best interest of justice that an order under supervision is more appropriate than  structure and the support and the con ability that it was based that he would get in and probation and probation and supervision are not the same thing there is different there's a different process a different processors different accountability and in with supervision the minor is basically left and his own with his parents that's why it's necessary to have the minors consent as well as the parents because they were told me they were doing the right or during the environment environment  parents want to sure that it complies with the conditions of supervision and under probation the minor will be assigned of probation officer who will he will need to check in with so there are stark differences between bob so there's no social service involvement supervision there can be there and if you know there can be he can receive certain services if they're if there are needed however it's at a pretty fine state before sentencing and it's familiar with the exact process and i know i need the cases continued and the court does monitor the course monitors through the probation officer so you know like that again if the minor