asked to be transferred to adult court agreed to be transferred to a don't court justice white that is what the record displays but when you look beneath what is on the surface of the record what you find is that this is a seventeen year old who went against yet vice a council it's a seventeen year old who went against the advice of a court appointed guardian ad litem and significantly in the overall context of this tra hearing the judge did not advise this young lady of the range of penalties she could face in adult court for one of the two charges i'm referring to the charge of aggravated back that was significant and we s supreme court's decision in people v class mates is what the case of people the mall requires and when you look at the record all the judge say's on the record is that i've considered the respondent m stand and yet a distinction could be made in second chances where the error complained of is in t v or out to the judicial process and incorrectly and that's what we're complaining about you cannot have the inability or just for a moment with respect to your allegation your argument that the trial court did not consider the necessary factors for the transfer or is it correct that the court did consider a guardi of course the minor the pants the advice of her counsel and guardian ad litem insisted on being transferred to adult court so let me ask you this let's assume that the court did pronounce on the factors as you indicate the court did not let's assume the court did and that this information was filed after the transfer a witness had up she had that morning to testify as the probable cause and once they had that ms hawkins was consenting to transfer that witness was sent away i believe a police officer and then you have defense counsel stipulating only yes the p one two took place basically in conjunction with the transfer hearing is part of the transfer hearing is that we might have it's my understanding is the rest no clear hearing actually held in terms of what constitutes an record coming over record of the juvenile court proceeding appears in this record on appeal but because there are requests essentially claiming ineffective assistance of counsel it's there has to be an adequate record to resolve issue of ineffective assistance of counsel this court cannot reverse on the ground of ineffective assistance without an adequate record to do so and because part of the record that would be necessary to resolve this question is the juvenile court proceedings in which the transfer proceedings you know teach actual juvenile court proceedings because when the minors taken into custody and held in detention there must have been or should have been a detention hearing at which one of the primary issues this is their probable cause that to believe that the minor is record to resolve the issue so if the child if the public defender who withdrew the motion to dismiss thoughts as a better strategy this is going to lay the case and it delays not good for the defendant for  dismissal does not affect the outcome of the trial therefore does not constitute strickland prejudice it's not a basis for reversing the charges or giving her a new trial do you agree that the transfer hearing the jets did make a determination as to whether or not there was probable cause that the minor committed the offense yes i'm not sure if that's i'm not sure that's clearly accurate i'm not sure if that's part of the the transfer i don't remember i guess i would say i do not remember if the allegation of minor committing an offense of probable cause is an element of the state's transportation i'm not sure that's the case u hearing would not be qualitatively different from what would be required under the constitution article one section seven and if that is the case for a minor who is initially charged with pains under a juvenile delinquency petition and then transferred to adult timely memory hearing in criminal court so it's not necessary to dismiss a case for failure to hold a cleaner hearing and there are some cases where i found that it's not necessary to even have dismissed it and even if therefore it's not retroactive and they present a transfer statute that initially of five required a minor fifteen years or older is charge of the classics felony other than armed violence of which this was the case because my understanding of the delinquency petition is to charge armed robbery which is a classic felony other than armed violence in the minor was at least fifteen so therefore the presumptive stat transfer statute in effect at that time did apply now the defense argument and i'm not sure if this is entirely clear on in the brief is being raised in the brief is that the transfer decision should be subject to reversal i think his argument is because the trial court filter considering articulate the factors in the transfer statute more case i believe that they rely on heavily is a case i think it says because part of their language was referring to the failure to articulate or consider factors under a discretionary strands for consent jack that's  the juvenile court has failed to consider and articulate all factors or i'm not aware of any such case so essentially without that having specifically been briefed and i'm or myself having researched that question and i'm not sure if this court is aware of any such case reversing a presumptive transfer case or failing to consider in articulate factors essentially the way of presumption works is that if it does not rebut it it stands find the facia evidence in th situation the presumption is completely not rebutted in fact the minor agreed to the motion and joined in it so therefore the presumption itself is the basis because it's not me but it is the basis for the transfer itself  consideration of those factors is necessary to support a discretionary transfer and there has to be some sort of case is this is being raised as a matter of light plane air for example there has to be some sort of precedent or case that makes this a clear obvious error there has to be some precedent that shows that about charges i understand i believe that there was the the criminal court charge the information that did include an aggravated battery charge but what was for the juvenile court was a petition for due to cation and we don't have that again and there is a rendition in the record that it did include i think if it did include a reference to an allegation of armed robbery because that's what it's response to transfer because it was a classic felony i'm not sure that any aggravated battery charges included within penalties for example for aggravated battery if that's not in the few competition of course we have this other situation where with the opposition which may have already been filed at the it was it was filed in fact before the data transfer hearing i miss sure though on this grounds the armed robbery charge was more serious than aggravated battery so she was admonished about the penalties pertaining to armed robbery the failure of the incomplete admonishment for example about a lesser charge and b s that attached to a lesser charge wouldn't be prejudicial because she was already of modest about the extent of the penalties for the more serious class next armed robbery charge so with respect to the issue of jurisdiction the words jurisdiction i existence of a controversy that can be adjudicated by courts any criminal charges pledging that a person committed offense under the criminal code is a controversy that can be adjudicated and therefore under the constitution of the state of illinois confers jurisdiction on the circuit court to hear that case now the circuit court in illinois is a unified circuit court it is vested with restriction by the constitution and the distinction as to where i case is heard in either juvenile or criminal court is simply a matter of procedure so therefore this is not really a jurisdictional question and this is a matter of procedure now course this is also a direct appeal so the senate can obtain reversal without relying on exceptions to procedural bars for example which obviously if a case if a court lacks subject matter jurisdiction the judge and the boy have an issue and can be challenged at any time in court i'm not sure that i mean that is not necessary here for the defendant to win if it's a direct appeal because there's court well the reason why that can become a problem is because part of the factors that at the time there was only discretionary transfer part of the factors that the judge has to consider the discretionary factor case place the probability of being indicted for example i think was one of the factors well if that if the person has already denied it that might influence to judge discretionary transfer decision that is why that could be a problem but joan said that was not a particular reversible  essentially whether the fed would be charged by information or not is not relevant to the transfer decision and therefore the fact that the transfer decision came after the charge that means the transfer decision was not affected by that charge there that would be the  of reversal under jones essentially as if the transfer decision had been affected by the fact that the defendant was already indicted or charged in criminal court that can't buy did not happen here and could not have happened here so therefore the concern in that situation that would make it a quote what her defendant did personally wanted to do so not sure if that rule directly applies only because of the objections or stated by the defense counsel that this was against his advice i'm not sure that the defendant personally gets to choose i mean there's several there's like four or five things the defense the penticton personally decide in a case and the transfer decision i'm not sure is is one of them but it was accepted in this case on that basis  it's essentially i guess my point is the defendant cites her age young age as the reason why we have to be careful in accepting waivers and i see understands that but i think it's also been recognized i'm not sure there's any case i didn't use in these briefs but i believe it would be the law that a defendant can waive to not the protection of juvenile courts and that's what the defendant obviously decided that she wanted to do in that position should be respected so for those reasons i would request hearing has been raised by a counsel in the sense that the suggestion is that the record is inadequate to pronounce on house's ineffectiveness because he doesn't have any record should we follow you don't have to well or why should i meet i place if probable cause is the same standard i have been around this a long time i understand accused did it now if you make that determination of juvenile court how is it the different determination you're making other women are here most often in detention hearings  om at least in my experience seldom do you have a detention hearing as witnesses call if i may go to the point i will just point out that a preliminary hearing the failure to have one and not be