outs at the outset i want to make an important distinction between this case jewell case and an ordinary adult probation revocation in an adult case prison is an option from the original friends i mean any option that was available at the original sentencing is available and revocation in juvenile hall that platform is also there there is an additional obstacle there  an additional hoop that is required for a juvenile to get sent to prison which is c section seven fifty which is not available to adults a minor cannot get sent to prison properly unless the unless there's basically one of two ways of doing the first if the parent as is has is this has a set of facts where the parents can't control the child parents or guardians and placement under section seven forty which is secure residential placement is not in the child's best interest as not and also it's not hopeless the other way of committing a child personal is i f prison regardless of the best interest of the child is if a person is not necessary to protect our prisons not because it is necessary to protect the public from a child from so every time a child  where if prison is being weighed courts have to go through subsection seven fifty and recent developments in the law have made it clear that for juveniles that's supposed to be an option of last resort jail for conduct for which adults cannot be locked up and a similar provision is a section one dish or point one also be juvenile court counsel that's not what happened in this case wasn't sentence after the court the court initially sent some minor to prison as a scared straight tactic the might behave well in prison and the judge gave him probation at that point to to essentially say that the minor gets probation at that point is a judgment that the underlying offense did not involve such conduct that was required to protect the community from the child's criminal activity or that it was in the child's best interest to be going to prison because at this point the court  already decided to let him out knowing that the kid brought five grams of pot to his middle school the try and sell it to another middle school student to buy a pair of jeans who counseled he does you that mine are less the sit ins or the possession of the drug adjudication underlying this entire case but there was a judgment of probation after that and it's the bunning away that got him sent to prison and i don't think there's any doubt about that well ok it seems you're arguing two things and in your brief it clearly is an argument or a separate arguments want to try a court erred as a matter of law or entering the judgment that it did after the probation violation the second being that it was an abuse of discretion but centering on justice both questions you as to the air as a matter of law what you're arguing that the trial court could not sentence the respondent to the j j sentence is there any case law that would provide support that because clearly the trial courts are presented with a situation many many times this is a very common thing where there is a crime committed  individual did not obtain anger management counseling didn't pay fines it could be any number of things that are going to eventually might not even constitute a crime let alone a crime for which sentenced to prison would be possible and yet that individual can't be sent to prison because they violated their probation and the underlying offense was one subject to  it does not run or because i don't read that is no fine seven fifty because you still cannot send a minor to prison unless you've satisfied seven fifty and i don't see how and if it's not in the mayor's best interest that he go to prison and there's no threat to the community based on the underlying judgement of probation where the court knows about the underlying crime of bringing some marijuana to middle school and there's a judgment at that point there's not a danger to community that there's that isn't in the child's best interest to go to prison how running away afterwards as the sole basis for revoking this kid's probation is grounds to send him a prison and that's all there is that's what got him sent to prison i understand that the under like offense was bringing marijuana in middle school but you can't it's not duck just to say this one statute generally allows courts that granted you also have to comply with seven fifty which doesn't allow the president less those conditions are met i don't see how running away in of itself is a threat to the community it's not criminal activity when the primes are committed by talk so if you were to rank the strength of your argument here the first being from a court here it is a matter of law and that didn't have the power  some evidence a child had committed a fact or some criminal conduct that would be that would be off the table because then you have new criminal activity that is not part of the underlying judgment of probation that is additional that his interest your honor with all due respect you actually have to we don't in this society we don't lock people up in advance on the probability that they're going to commit a crime but these are already committed crimes that he spent sentence for and didn't the court say first because again where is the threat to the public how does it become of the best interest to send him to prison if he's running away and there are all these other options there's a section some forty six you know other things other than granting setting this child back home to do more probation with a mother who can't control him was not an appropriate disposition other than sending him to prison and other than sending him back to mom and in effect probation so there was a seven forty placement when a secure discharge under section seven ten eight this electronic home detention right three hundred most things are available but are you saying that the court had no option to impersonate this one you're saying that it was wrong as a matter of  occurred and we don't know whether marcus was a perpetrator or a bystander with some other kid shoplifted and he was along for the ride we have no idea and no charges were brought but it was the court in the juvenile case is al argument as i said my reply even assuming that the contacts are in the universe of information available to the court how probate is that we have a police contact with no further information that says that and i don't think the police contacts with no other information as to whether a crime occurred at all or whether it was and whether it was marcus who was the perpetrator rather than any other wrong or near or bystander is a basis for sending him to prison especially with how bad prison is for juveniles which supreme court united states  noted and i understand that you know again it's the price it's it's not it's the starting point is the seven forty or seven forty seven twenty six still that has the general options for any available sentence where you start out but in a month for a minor you still have to go through seven fifty and again how is it in a given how bad and undisputedly bad prison is for minors housing of minors best interest which is running away to be sent to prison where is the threat to the community from criminal activity whether built any criminal activity unless we're going to sue the police report amounts to a reason to send a child to prison of the late curfew violations of failure to obtain substance abuse treatment anything that was a violation but was not a criminal act subject to a d j sentence trial court would have no discretion to sentence on the underlying sense to the j j is that what you're saying if you get within the first argument yes that is what i'm saying i'm saying that you try over and over again with a minor again sentences if you commit certain sex offenses you could have five six counts there's another statute that says you can only stack and second if sentence is so high it's not to read just one statute you still have to satisfy seven fifty and when you have a curfew violation a kid by cigarettes when they're only sixteen underage drinking at eighteen or nineteen when you have seventy two those aren't  again given that prison is becoming more and more just state and now had this case come up three months later there would have been a showing that that you know that it was like a last resort there have to been a last resort showing the last available option to satisfy the minor with minors you try and try again and again with running away of course eventually you can give the kid detention you can get put in a secure residential so you could make good use of a start you can take his license away there's always options for dealing with the kid of course especially the age out because by the time they're circumstance of how i came to be adopted by a family substantially over him perhaps his foster care but he was a fourteen year old boy with siblings in their fifty's and parents in their seventy's and then his father's adoptive father died his sister died and then another brother died just before he was recent and does the record also shows at the revocation hearing that one of the reasons marcus is running away was to avoid basically being in fistfights with his fifty three year old brother who  and so even if there is some residual discretion to say that somehow prison is the right remedy just saw the kid was running away with no criminal activity as a shown as a result of that i would say that  i'm not saying this child does not need more intervention i'm saying prison isn't the answer for kids  court i will start off for mr ryan just stop i agree running away is not treated by sending someone to prison but that's a very isolated view of what happened here as your questions have indicated you're fully aware he was being sentenced for possession of i point six grams of cannabis on a middle school he was not being sentenced for running away and the statute plainly provides that when a minor violates probation the court is allowed to sentence the minor to any sentencing option that was available at the original time originally he was sentenced to the juvenile justice clearly that means it was an option available at the original sentencing hearing it was because he did well that the court provided him an opportunity to show that he could succeed in the community based sentence and allowed him that opportunity but with conditions they were not difficult conditions they were very standard conditions in response to your question just as holder white it was actually two weeks before the conduct started to go down it was a month before the hearing was set the hearing actually occurred later than it was originally scheduled because the miner failed to appear at the original hearing to review the probation after his release from the within those two weeks which cause the state to file the petition to revoke and prior to the approximate four weeks later when the hearing was health it was not simply running away it was running away multiple times it was failing to appear for three probation visits and i believe they were set up once a week so if and or we should have had four visits he missed three of them it was failing to follow curfew it was failing to take prescribed medications he had made no efforts toward the community service hours that he had been ordered to do it was not just running away and that at that point even if those were not criminal offenses those get lumped back in with your original offense when he came before the court and the probation was revoked and he was subject to every sentence like i agree that seven fifty put some limitations on when a court's finding of commitment is appropriate but it does not remove the option at the time that marcus was found adjudicated delinquent or the possession with intent to deliver his sentencing options were set that sentencing option three did the measurements of the department of juvenile justice his subsequent behavior when he was given this opportunity to prove to do better and whether those contacts while on probation here arguing it wasn't a yes yes ok so now we're what we're doing is we're looking at a continuum correct with your grief and what you're saying is that in that continuum most of us much more than just a single bottle lation this is a and i would like to point out that the mother herself if you read the transcript she was candid and she appeared to be somewhat torn in the sense that the original time when the court allowed him probation son safe regardless of her age and the age of the older brothers she is expressing her concern and yet she agreed you know he could come back home he could live with these conditions at the court but on the show that he could not do that and i want to get i want to make this point that whenever you sentence to the department of juvenile justice the automatic argument by the counsel representing that you is this is punishment there is no other reason there is no other possible benefits to sending him there it's strictly a punishment and i want to make clear that's not the case if you look at the goals of the acts they are there are several and several of them were set out in mr ryan's original brief and those include the overarching purpose of the act is to secure for every child the care and the guidance necessary to serve the safety the moral emotional mental physical welfare of the child the access is every child's right to services necessary for his safety and proper development including health education social services another goal is to develop joint minors into productive adults the evidence here says that when he was sent and he was committed to juvenile justice he was getting that the goal of the act was being a fill in the mandate of the state to provide him care and safety he wasn't acting out he was attending as he was supposed to he got the services that the acts of desperately trying to put in place for him what about mr ryan's argument that something short of d j commitment would satisfy those interests for example placement under seven or electronic home detention there is no indication here the placement after seven forty was available although the trial court did not go in great articulation as to what they had looked at their doesn't his belief was facilities like catholic charities and there were several other programs at the trial court went through that he had already received those services and none of them had been successful in the trial court specifically articulated those services and the fact that they were unsuccessful i regional sentencing and when he was recent scene he went back and he said i laid this out in detail and i adopt the findings that i found then here too so there is evidence in the record that they had tried be on probation at home with mom in those services or but they had tried other community services for this minor and they were all unsuccessful i think the first point though is i want to address a comment that was made i vehemently disagree with the suggestion that once the trial court sentenced marcus to commitment to juvenile justice and then when marcus showed improvement and he allowed him to probation i completely disagree with the suggestion that once probation was determined to read seven twenty which allows for commitments at any time when there's a violation probation violation of probation if it was originally allowed and not read seven fifty as i've already talked about in those limitations that you have to sign but you can't read seven fifty eight and not seven ten he was being sentence for the offense of possession with intent to liver and the trial court's opportunity to prove that he would be successful in the community based sentence did not foreclose the future option if you violate it to return him to the department of justice and that is exactly what the statute plainly says there is simply no statutory support for the argument that returning him to do little justice department of justice was not available as a matter of law it was i also disagree with the suggestion that it was an abuse of discretion to do so as i believe it was justice harris pointed out he did have police contacts for criminal activity and know the state did not file new charges but there again this could be looked at in two ways in the suggest that they didn't file new charges because there probably wasn't evidence to support them i counter that this was a fourteen year old view who was already in juvenile proceedings and those things could be handled and considered in the proceedings that were already happening they have the right to look at pact and it was criminal activity and again in re sentencing the trout program friends back to the original sentencing hearing and in the original sentencing hearing the  had laid out that there had been thirteen additional police contacts they're far more than running away battery criminal sexual assault criminal damage to property aggravated battery burglary of a motor vehicle trespass that there was testimony that he was robbing elementary age students of their sony play station games he was all in he was involved or suggesting gang activity asking this elementary student if he was willing to fight again to get  playstation this portable playstation this was all happening at or on school grounds he admitted at fourteen daily cannabis use what short of recommitment did the have to serve the goals of the act how as a fourteen year old running away on the streets dale using cannabis getting his rights to services necessary for his safety and perfe he can't but if we put him back as the trial court did in juvenile justice he gets those things he has no choice but to get those things and the employer insists that we're causing problems such as friends of firemen are removed i'm not saying it's ideal i'm not i'm not ignorant of all of the research that suggests there's damage that can happen by putting children in juvenile justice because they are coming in contact with others but he was coming in contact he was seeking them out when he was out on his own and the evidence we have is of his brother sister and his father within a span of two years i mean this isn't the child that comes from a family of means or even a family you know within the of the traditional sense countered with the right of every child to go to school free from being pressured into or not pressure but cresent it with the option to buy trials but the trial court again specifically articulated the difficulties and at the recent  acknowledge the recent passing of the prothero who apparently was the brother that marcus was closer to than the other brother that the mom appeared to make a call on occasion force or if she felt she needed help in dealing with whatever issues she  takes issue with the value of some of the police contacts probably both those that occurred and were referenced in the original sensing hearing and then the fifth in the criminal damage to property that occurred while he was out on probation following the original commitment that the statute clearly provides for those to be considered and the statute by language recognizes that there is a limit on the program value of them but it doesn't change the fact that there is a value to them and it's a pattern that was consistent from his original thirteen police contacts to originally being picked up for throwing pumpkins and breaking into cars on a night with apparently his biological brother those charges were dismissed as part of the deal when he pled guilty to this possession with intent then he gets another chance of probation we have this continuing damage criminal damage to property it's a pattern that the court could not be asked to acknowledge this was conduct proven is the running away is the only thing in the revocation thing the curfew violations that might be side thinks of this but again these are exactly the kinds of things that don't scream out for prison these are child offenses child infractions the idea that state saying is that prison is good for minors flies in the face of all the research twice in the face of our supreme court personal safety by what i'm serious characters he needs and then you put him with the most violent minors who are threats to the public and you're make sure that he runs and also it took issue with the state's argument that it can that somehow so section seven forty placement goes away if you just say oh well i'm not aware that that was available the statute makes that a condition of seven fifty and this is also a flaw with the state's over argument they want to say that satisfy some fifty but they never look at the language of how is it in the best interest of marcus to go to prison rather than residential place seven forty which is right there in seven fifty how is violating his curfew and running away from his mom by the way the dates were thank you set free july fifth and the first alleged incident her july twenty fourth the ninety days timeframe and then there are the services that are supposedly being being provided which are not in the record and i have no doubt that yes he does try to do i do james he tries to do some things but the fact is even now the illinois legislature is saying the prison is supposed to be a last resort  i don't see again when council refers to police contacts the vast majority are all but two of which occurred prior to the court's order of probation in this case with the possible information how then the contra brushing away and the out past the curfew transforms what about probation will not a threat to the public because to set him free to not give prison your implicitly agreeing with seven fifty that this is not a threat to the does running away without further evidence of criminal activity transform that into a threat i would say the same thing for a curfew violation also it's not just the state has no he didn't have new charges and he was not picked up for theft he was picked up on the warrant for his revocation violation how is the fact that there are no charges mean that it didn't happen all there is a paucity of information and again i point out the state makes reference to some of marxist conduct that was a theory that was presented by the state regional disposition here in the state clearly is able to present evidence of other things in the court knew all this and then subsequently gave him probation the state if it had any credible evidence of marcus was involved in a theft or criminal damage property he if not they can get another basis perhaps easier grounds of her reputation could have presented actual facts instead of relying on contacts also i take again as i say to verify i take strong issue and marcus's mom to the fact that his mom told the counselor that there was some sexual abuse that marcus didn't want to talk about to me that actually implies that he's the victim because usually if you're a perpetrator you're not allowed to just not talk about it there are things that are going to be done to deal with you when you're twelve years old and you're committing sex offenses and to be allowed no counseling no nothing implies that he's a victim and the idea now