offenders office adults in illinois who are in prison based upon criminal findings of filth have one well recognized procedural method to redress the affirmations or constitutional rights that occurred in the underlying proceedings  it's not acceptable alternative your honor even though in lawton and in the history in checking with the state's attorney's office in the public defender's office it is common  one they have a p c merely stands in it's not till second stage the net individual gets an opportunity they have representation in the b c a must it's is own right so judge did in this case who backhandedly says oh i hope it's changed on appeal but in reality if he had granted a fourteen zero one it would have had  something the public defender is representing and now this is several months a year now you're looking for a public defender that's probably long gone into private practice or elsewhere in the states of turning it's been transferred to another division in the judges probably retires so that means you now stall this out for anywhere from six months to a year before the individual gets a hearing whereas under a fourteen zero one and under what he would section two thirty two of the juvenile court and that gives the juvenile one year to file an eight to fourteen one with respect and with respect to that one year time frame if vincent had tried to file a two fourteen zero one he would been too late  he was sentence which was the date that his conviction became final purposes of two fourteen zero one and june fourth two thousand and eight the appeal was denied our me their decision from this court affirming his can affirming his condition was on august twenty seventh two thousand and nine the p l o a was denied march twenty fourth two thousand and ten so he would have had until june fourth of two thousand and nine to file it to fourteen zero one one thing unless it's in upon the time so he probably tried to file a t c also the issue which gave rise to the claim which was ineffective assistance of appellate counsel that didn't manifest itself until  there is an area there which is hard to address and the only time the only excuse for a late filing of a two fourteen zero one is the person is under duress or legal disability that wouldn't apply or th the question is the supreme court what i'm saying you have to give them the wars to address i'm saying i don't think the p c alone is go and it's it's a search of a remedy for that particular situation that was a sexually dangerous persons act that was a purely civil act there was no criminal wrongdoing no punishment involved in law and in originated it isn't easy but there's no remedy so they wish but there has to be around me that's the remedy under article one section twelve you know in my constitution and the state is recognized in its response brief that there has to be a remedy in there p to fourteen months there has to be a remedy but with respect to two fourteen zero one in juvenile petitions or juvenile post conviction juvenile proceedings but the reason why two fourteen zero one was was brought up was it was specifically addressed in william m from two thousand and three it's two fourteen zero one doesn't apply to juvenile proceedings that's two thousand and three law is decided in two thousand and four and the reason why it's brought up in william am in two thousand and three is because the state made exact same argument you're making now right so what are you asking us to i am asking you to look at the broad purposes of those convictions consider the fact that juvenile proceedings have markedly changed we're doing  well you wouldn't be amending it you would just be it does there's nothing in the juvenile court act or the post conviction act which specifically says that one should apply to the other and that observation was made in a w h with two thousand and eleven lot seem to be much more recent than any cases you cite well the case that i cited in the reply brief actually had to do with the fact that no other court has seized on this clarity of purpose with seat well i think that you could consistent with the broader purposes of the view of the post conviction act and finding that finding that they're not inconsistent i think you could find conditions that changed such that the post conviction actually apply to juveniles and it makes more sense for them to apply if you've been doing this gets back to some of your other questions just as justice cheryl smith regarding why the p c act is a better option than two fourteen zero one you mention the stages two fourteen zero one only has two stages you've got the got the initial pleading that's filed and then the court reviews that and the state can have input there too in the trial court and the state can have input there that doesn't happen and stage one of a postcondition proceeding so the state has input and then the judge decides is there enough here to have this go forward to the second stage of the two fourteen zero one which is the third stage of a post conviction so what's missing in that paradigm stage two of the post conviction and what is stage two of the post conviction and stage two is the most important one and will be is particularly important for juveniles because that's where and complete form to the court for them to review it that is missing from two fourteen zero one and that's its biggest problem there's no no right to discovery you know to fourteen no one there is under the second stage of the of the p c m and it doesn't make any sense to place juveniles in a worse position than adults especially in light of the equal protection like a statute of five one zero three three if i want to one in three of the juvenile court act in this purpose and policy section that says that all protections procedural protections that are given to adults have to be given to juveniles unless you're going to give juveniles greater protections i think if you make a compelling argument but for judges sure well i think judges declare statutes unconstitutional all the time and you're not i don't i don't think you need to go as far as perhaps you think you do i think all you need to do is look at the broad purposes of the act now you said that he's looking at what you're what you're asking us to do in your briefs and it does seem that you know you're asking for a not reside in our power well i mean to the extent that he sent to the supreme court has certainly asked for a case that he sent his way and he's got to go it's got to go but you've got  first try you lust with justices that are probably less conservative than i number one in two was unanimous and number three if anybody was going to change it it would have been them but they were hung up initially on the question did you even hear jurisdiction and i'll say maybe there's a question there but they were hung up as well as us and whether technically you lay your footwork and now well i think what i can lay my footwork on and i think that that you can just look as i said to the fact that the purpose of the post conviction act is to  reliability accountability and integrity in the process and that there is a good reason to have that those goals being protected by four juveniles under the rubric of the post conviction act in juvenile court and i believe that not allowing juveniles to have those protections is a violation of equal protection for similarly situated adults who are in prison based upon criminal wrongdoing which a case is reviewed where as the postcondition act goes to the reliability of the outcome and so edge of whether it whether someone has a jury trial or a bench trial does not impact how fair the proceedings are entitle to a jury so i guess at a minimum at a minimum if you don't want to go so far as to extend the right of post conviction act the post conviction proceedings to all juveniles you can certainly extend them  juveniles you have a right to a jury trial and a public trial ok it's in juvenile jersey that we're on that well it's to extend a juvenile jurisdiction is the is the only hate only circumstance where there is a right to a public trial and i think that the class of cases that would reach post conviction stage would be very small because they would have to be people that were really convicted of murder because when someone is convicted of murder and they're not transferred to adult court under the juvenile court act there's a minimum of a five year sentence vincent was in custody for six years and three months before he was released he's still on electronic monitoring so he's still under the he's still under state constraint under people vs career and actually because he filed his petition while he was in custody he doesn't lose standing based on people versus davis an illinois supreme court case but he extended punishment in the juvenile system and they all provide for incarceration until you're twenty one years old so those are the cases that are going to be the most fodder for for post fodder for legislators to consider but that's not the rule well but i don't i as war and peer indicate that's not in the history of how the postcondition act  has been incorporated interpreted or put into effect as a matter of fact the way the postcondition at first existed which was in the reply brief which was no place else was twenty seven eight which is a the merry go round of of proceedings that collateral seeking collateral relief seeking defendants in illinois were up against in the state would always say no this is wrong remedy which is exactly what the state is saying in this case is wrong r so the supreme court created the post conviction at as a remedy to redress that constitutional problem and i know you're going to be you might be saying well the supreme court can do that but your question just most recently was the legislature's role to do that so the court the legislature or the supreme court has not waited for the legislature to to act and it was i quoted something also in the reply brief far from people versus lawton that you couldn't wait for the general assembly to act because otherwise you could sit on their hands and people need to put people would be deprived of their right to constitute but to address constitutional deprivations so don't need to wait for the legislature history of the nixon act in particular of not waiting for the legislature history to post conviction act looking at the broader purposes and the broader goals of the post conviction and and then affecting those and that's what i think that this court should do and i think that you could not going to extend the postcondition act to juvenile proceedings it was not a strict statutorily construction argument that was made in our r and a w h r r n w h plant the seeds fi saying by citing akiva versus pennsylvania of perhaps someday the this there will come a day when its time to overrule is based upon changed circumstances but those distinction or argument or quibble to take with applying the p c act to juveniles and in his use are which is a fourth district case from two to thousand  every single constitutional protection that is in the in the adult system is in the juvenile system and consent as a jury trial right public trial right and  thirty year thirty year adult sense but i just as i said i don't don't think you need to rewrite the act of think you just need to overrule aren't a w h in the seats for that are planted within those very pinions acknowledge that there's nothing inconsistent about applying the post conviction act the juvenile court act is just a matter policy deferential policy as it existed in one thousand nine hundred eighty seven and the market changes to the juvenile court act since  that created you process necessity to extend those condition as to the juvenile court because otherwise vincent will not have a grammy and if your honor is inclined to wrap it up good morning again i'd just like to clarify two things beginning first off contrary to what mr jacobs said this court cannot over rule another appellate court decision for four it can obviously disagree with it find that it is improper and have a different version but this court doesn't have the authority in the oversight of other appellate panels for all the onus from court has said that repeatedly so just to clarify what he's actually asked me to do he's asking you to disagree with the readiness of more powers we don't have yes it's quite a list post commission hearing act this is actually not correct and i will be seeking the side of this with already it's essentially it's a lot of your article written by albert jenner who was the chair of the committee that drafted the original post conviction hearing and in response to the quote unquote merry go round of review methods review that was identified by the u s supreme court because in that case in numerous cases in the one nine hundred forty s the u s supreme court recognized that illinois review whether it be direct appeal which was known as a bill of a or or a state he views corpus or recording novus two fourteen zero one they were all particular in their procedural demands and it was possible that criminal defendants could not seek any review of any case whether it be direct review or collateral and so what the u s supreme court held was that there had to be some form of review whether director collateral that allowed for people to do to seek review of their criminal convictions and what the committee it was a joint committee of the only state on appeal but refused to adapt the postcondition hearing act and so as albert jenner explains in this article it was immediately brought over to the legislature who adopted it in one thousand nine hundred ninety became the most commission hearing act so just to clarify that the o apply to delinquency proceedings and instead there is no timing restriction on the two fourteen one or special timing restrictions on two fourteen one provisions in the link with the proceedings and as he said william am specifically recognize the two fourteen zero one provision petitions can be raised in juvenile cases and delinquency cases and yes he's right that typically there is a two year timeframe and typically there is a a restriction on the ability to bring it out so that your timeframe but that is a an affirmative defense to be raised by the respondent to the petition it is not a bad are it is not a prohibition not a jurisdictional step it has to be established just like in post conviction proceedings so there was no prohibition against the petitioner in proper post plea motion should be prohibited from bringing forth a direct appeal because in the adult criminal courts if you don't file the proper post the motion your case should be dismissed because you haven't satisfied the six zero forty condition precedent but the what william m said is we're not going to go that far because of the restrictions on the a bit on the availability of post conviction and other collateral remedies you can never have a full review a direct appeal that would exist in juvenile proceedings and so we're not going to hold the will that rule the six afford the condition precedent against the found against juvenile delinquents but we're going to and we're going recognize that there are restrictions on what a review including post conviction include  long tradition has its limit the next time the court has to look at the scope of two fourteen zero one is the lawton case the next year when they're dealing with a civil proceeding which is very related to a criminal prosecution it was establishing that someone was a sexually dangerous person because he submitted violent sexual offenses recognizing hitting constitutional right through the effective assistance of counsel in the end he could not thereby bring a post conviction petition because he had never been convicted and can't be done elsewhere that is exactly what happens here this juvenile delinquent could have brought these claims the claim of ineffective assistance of counsel for failing to personally inform him that he could have made the where they could be addressed no i don't believe so because the law didn't specifically said otherwise they said the typically it is in that scenario lawton typically says that it is a factual claim that wasn't available before or it is a claim of a statutory another one might not be available and that's why they addressed the claim of ineffective assistance of counsel because that petitioner in their case could not have brought it otherwise because his claim of ineffectiveness was based upon effect the same attorney who represented him at the hearing for directly on point in the scenario in terms of mr jacobs reference to the distinctions between a post conviction hearing act and a few fourteen on one in the multiple stages i would simply direct this court's attention to people versus war in war was the case in the only supreme court where they exercise or supervisory authority which as mr jacobs recognized this court doesn't have to allow for the procedures under the postcondition hearing act to be applied as as far as they can be extended but importantly if then also identify three very specific procedures which are not in the postcondition hearing and most importantly for a misdemeanor it's to bring a post conviction hearing and they if they were found guilty in a trial they get six months but if they pled guilty they only get four months to raise it clearly there's no reference to a distinction between the timing of the entry of the judgments or the manner of the entry of judgment under the ordinary prostitution area but more importantly is the third part of the last paragraph of the war to ask or to read it carefully what it specifically provides is that after the defendant has filed his petition and after the prosecution has filed their answer the court may dismiss petition without ever appointing counsel and without hurling in an entry hearing if it finds that there are is no substantial basis for of the claim race and addition so what the court there specifically said is that you don't have the right to have an attorney in a misdemeanor post which a proceeding the second stage doesn't exist in the misdemeanor postcondition proceeding obviously the court has the discretion to appoint an attorney but it's not mandated under war under the particular post mission proceedings for m juvenile court act in the juvenile court as the almost report has repeatedly recognized is intended to be distinct from the criminal courts it is not intended to be as formalistic in this problem or as lengthy in the post commission hearing act with its ninety day timeframe for only the judge to rule by himself without any input from anyone else and if it will within the ninety days automatically can reverse it to the second stage the amending the point of counsel is directly contrary to what was intended in the juvenile court now than what it was in the one nine hundred seventy s and before but it's still not an adult criminal prosecution it is still a juvenile proceeding it is still not a conviction and so the people versus taylor case that your honor was pointing out there is very that a post conviction proceeding snappy reason and juvenile proceeding because it's not a conviction that sort of thing has been a matter of illinois law for two generations and what the or no legislature has not done despite repeated four to like admonishments but the legislature didn't do the same thing here it could have easily done it it could have easily said postcondition hearing act is available for juvenile defendants for juvenile delinquents but it didn't  in regards to the unique pastor this case being an extended human elder jurisdiction at this point is the whole court and director view recognized the statue the conviction to say that thirty year sentence a state he does not have a conviction at this point if however the respond in this case vincent k were to violate that day and the sentence to say would be hidden in the sentence would be formally imposed he would then point have conviction and he could at that point of course raise any claim in any post conviction proceeding he chose to we saying there kate we said in our brief these people versus anderson were this court recognized bed someone who was transferred from juvenile court to adult court was convicted involved or could raise a challenge to the proceedings in the juvenile court at the transfer hearing in the reason why is because they the rights extended back that far so he's what taylor what taylor stood for is not interesting to post conviction at but just whether there's a conviction but i think under the principles of war and peer you don't necessarily need a conviction to file a post conviction petition i think that you look at the practical practical circumstances of being in custody being after being found guilty of criminal wrongdoing and being punished that's what gives you that the standing that with respect to taylor and it's extended term  for conviction purposes it didn't and i don't think it addressed conviction and post convict and the post conviction at this stage in the hit talks about the fact that post conviction proceed or that juvenile proceedings are less formal but less formality has nothing to do with less reliability and that's what the post conviction act is trying to trying to protect and to ensure and just because something is less formal won't make it just because something is less formal doesn't mean it makes it less should be less reliable and the two fourteen zero one motions which the state is suggesting that's going to be a lot that's going to certainly formalize the proceedings as well so this stinks in between  two fourteen a one versus a post conviction from the formality standpoint i don't really see what it is with respect to why i think that that that that's probably the key thing that that you need to look at is that  represents a completely changed paradigm for looking at two forty one motions strictly from a strictly factual standpoint two errors that constitute constitutional errors and  thousand and six those are two cases that discuss that there's no remedy for juveniles and the post conviction act doesn't apply if the state's reasoning was correct and it was so clear that lawton overruled william and allows for not this broad based equitable equitable mechanism it's to resolve errors of fact and not to do equitable justice which is what the state was arguing that to fourteen on one would accomplish here and ask the court