filed in july of zero six a time when he was fifteen years old it referred to acts to delinquency allegedly occurring about a year earlier in twenty five when he would have been fourteen deficient in here is a mental reasoning he had no real memory he could not assist counsel and he had absolutely no understanding of the proceedings against him he was you know we will sentence then i'm good according to the expert the expert also added two other facts and that is in her judgment he was not a pedophile and he was not likely to reoffend and he with the report filed by  and he or she was at the time seven years old referred to an incident that occurred and when she was five she referred to the fact that she and the minor and the minors brother playing a game cornfields some naked game the object of the game of all of these thrown in the last person to get to the ball would have to be made the young girl lost she was naked in the minor touched her at that time in the presence of his brother there was no penetration however she eventually told someone about this in this letter to the found that he should be acquitted of the charge of aggravated criminal sexual sall which would involve sexual penetration the judge found that he was not not guilty of the lesser phrasing clearly it's a one sided presentation especially in a fish proceeding by definition the defendant is not going to defend a new criminal case or the minor in a juvenile case is not going to be able to cooperate with counsel and it's case went on from the area's call periodically reports would be filed by the department of human services alternately in november twenty or way the state by two motions one of which is of the essence of this case the first most to lose a motion for further treatment further if it is treated and the second was a motion to have a minor register as a sex offender the judge connected to hearing in january of zero nine he denied a motion for the subject to a requirement that you register for the rest of his natural life as a sex offender we are you and the state reads that the answer to the question of whether staff must register is found section set out in the original brief we've also set it out as an appendix to the reply brief because again we believe that the the essence of this case is tied up in the language of that stature and i will refer to it hopefully without reading sections wholesale to the core as you go to that section two we find that there are a number her decisions that clearly are not and cannot be applicable to say he was not  one of four point five eight of the code of criminal procedure our point is very simple it is very simply that this is a juvenile caves he could not process pursuant to the provisions of the code of criminal  contention remains that it was not as a matter of fact a proceeding under the code of criminal procedure now i realize that i'm asking this who are who are who very closely here lady and with the then very strictly read the language of the statute i'm not asking that the court try to figure out how many angels can dance that said on air canada it is a matter of strict statutory construction i'm not arguing to criminal cases and they have said well the references to criminal case i juvenile hate is not a criminal case and it will be a criminal case provisions cannot be applied in the juvenile case case into a criminal proceeds we cited the case in re beazley whether we will forward to retaining to a guilty plea should apply with juvenile court said no a juvenile case is not a criminal case what about  no rule for eleven referring to discovery in a criminal case does not apply in juvenile case because a juvenile case is not a criminal case the costache you are in rape w w from nine hundred eighty three when you ask here in the way that i was going to be a sex offender and to suffer the what the supreme court has called collateral consequences without ever having been convicted of sex  ny i don't think that that is i don't thing i don't think is a corollary between the fact that this person is not necessarily been convicted but there is sufficient evidence to prove that he did something to register he would have to register for all of his natural life that there is no finding when the judge ordered here that he registered the judge did not specify a term for the registration the term for the registration would then it's a ten year registration period the sex the sexual predator designation goes toward essentially any aggravated effect here of which the underlying offense would be an aggravated offense aggravated criminal sexual assault the and both of them have to do with juveniles who have been you know who were ordered to register under a duty to register for their natural law i have as a matter of fact also conferred with the illinois state