of probation because such as physicians was not available when he was placed on probation the facts of this case are rather simple and straightforward the respondent was fifteen years old when he committed the offense and he was sentenced to five years of probation when he was twenty facts equally clear and simple is the law as set forth by enraged dexter l by the second district in two thousand and two when it was stated that the trial court is without authority to sentence a juvenile to an adult facility for a probation violation particularly given that such treatment is not allowable or probation violation at the time that he was rudely sounds and i would note that in rendering this opinion the second district noted in opinion from the attorney general in one thousand nine hundred four that stated under the same set of circumstances that placing a juvenile in the adult syllabi would not be allowed the state seemingly concedes this issue as it doesn't challenge the substance of any of the points raised in instead the state argues that this determination is moot because the defendant is now over the age of twenty one our response to that is twofold actually in the sense of three people the first is that for two reasons this is not a moot question the first being that the fact that he has over the age of twenty one has not been found to be relevant in cases which  determined the sort of question in the lead on this might be jamie he a case cited by the state and it's free in which that defendant was twenty four years old but the juvenile court kept jurisdiction over violations and it was determined that the court was without jurisdiction because the trial had turned twenty one but at that stage it was not a moot issue for the appellate court on review i would also note and again a couple of cases cited by the state  highlight this point india be in j v both indicate that where a state has put in place then an issue is not moot because there is still believe they can be afforded to the parties and still something that isn't controversy and there is a controversy here given that the juvenile court even though it is without jurisdiction to handle this matter because the juvenile is no longer a juvenile the juvenile court is continuing to exercise this sort of  it's holding the five day sentence in the bay so the juvenile does have something and issue in this case and there is controversy and we would therefore contend that this is not a moot issue however if this court finds that it is moot for either of those two reasons factors that determine whether a public interest exists are one whether it's a question of a public nature to whether it is desirable to have an authoritative answer to guy public officials in question such as this and through how high is the likelihood of a recurrence and all three of those factors are here in this case as they were index for al the first obviously this is a question of public concern housing juveniles with a work just as throughout the state and there was a split about half the said said that it was appropriate to sentence a juvenile in these circumstances in an adult jail and about half said that it had to be in ju obviously this is a question that is being puzzled over by circuit courts and needs to be addressed by this court ridiculous considering that there is no controversy in terms of the public court rulings there is one ruling that is currently you're looking at such a short term when you have a term of five days there is not an opportunity unless it has occurred here the sentences state for this type of sentence to be reviewed and when you're dealing with a juvenile you're looking at a number of circumstances where the child is going to age out and not be a part of the system or where simply the sentence doesn't have time to be reviewed so with those three factors in play it is clear that the public interest