Illinois Official Reports 

Appellate Court

In re J’Lavon T., 2018 IL App (1st) 180228

Appellate Court 

Caption

In re J’LAVON T., a Minor (The People of the State of Illinois, 

Petitioner-Appellee, v. J’Lavon T., Respondent-Appellant).

District & No. First District, Sixth Division

Docket No. 1-18-0228

Filed June 15, 2018

Decision Under 

Review

Appeal from the Circuit Court of Cook County, No. 17-JD-363; the 

Hon. Lana Charisse Johnson, Judge, presiding.

Judgment Affirmed in part; vacated in part; and remanded.

Counsel on

Appeal

James E. Chadd, Patricia Mysza, and Alexander G. Muntges, of State 

Appellate Defender’s Office, of Chicago, for appellant.

Kimberly M. Foxx, State’s Attorney, of Chicago (Alan J. Spellberg, 

Annette Collins, and Ashlee Cuza, Assistant State’s Attorneys, of 

counsel), for the People.

Panel PRESIDING JUSTICE HOFFMAN delivered the judgment of the 

court, with opinion.

Justices Connors and Delort concurred in the judgment and opinion.
- 2 - 

 OPINION 

¶ 1 The respondent, J’Lavon T., appeals from the trial court’s judgment adjudicating him a 

delinquent minor by reason of his commission of one count of armed robbery and the resulting 

sentence of 2 years’ probation and 40 hours’ community service.1

 The respondent argues that 

certain conditions of probation imposed by the trial court, including that he have “no gang 

contact” and not post “anything related to a gang” on social media, were improper because 

they lack exceptions for legitimate purposes. Additionally, he claims that the social media 

restriction violates due process because it does not adequately identify what conduct 

constitutes a violation of probation. For the reasons that follow, we affirm in part, vacate in 

part, and remand. 

¶ 2 The State alleged in a petition for adjudication of wardship that the 15-year-old respondent 

committed one count each of theft from a person (720 ILCS 5/16-1 (West 2016)), robbery (720 

ILCS 5/18-1 (West 2016)), aggravated robbery (720 ILCS 5/18-1(b) (West 2016)), armed 

robbery (720 ILCS 5/18-2(a)(2) (West 2016)), unlawful restraint (720 ILCS 5/10-3(a) (West 

2016)), aggravated unlawful restraint (720 ILCS 5/10-3.1(a) (West 2016)), and battery (720 

ILCS 5/12-3(a)(2) (West 2016)). 

¶ 3 The matter proceeded to a bench trial, where the following evidence was adduced by the 

State. At approximately 10 a.m. on February 11, 2017, the victim, Jonathon Todd, met an 

acquaintance at a store in Chicago. The acquaintance led Todd to the basement of an 

abandoned building, where the respondent and two other individuals “grabbed” him. One of 

those individuals drew a gun and took Todd’s cell phone, and the respondent “punched” Todd 

in the face. Todd contacted the police, identified the respondent at the police station, and also 

identified him in court. Based on this evidence, the trial court found the respondent delinquent 

as to the armed robbery count.2

¶ 4 The matter proceeded to a dispositional hearing, where the trial court received a social 

investigation report. According to the report, the respondent had “been to” the Juvenile 

Temporary Detention Center once but had not previously been subject to a warrant, arrest, 

station adjustment, or probation. He attended high school and had “some friends that are in a 

gang” but denied that he belonged to a gang. The respondent’s mother stated that their family 

lives in “a rough area with a lot crime and gangs” and that he “got caught up” in the offense 

because of “hanging with the wrong people.” She added that, during the offense, the 

respondent “was a follower and he should have kn[own] better” and that “the biggest problem 

she [has] with [him] is making sure he does not hang with a negative crowd.” She also stated 

that, during the year following the offense, “things have been about the same but [the 

respondent] needs to stay away from negative peers.” 

¶ 5 The trial court sentenced the respondent to 2 years’ probation and 40 hours’ community 

service. In setting forth the conditions of his probation, the judge stated: 

 

1The respondent was tried jointly with a co-respondent, Phazahn D., who is not a party to this 

appeal. 

2The judge did not state findings as to the remaining counts. 
- 3 - 

“No gangs, guns or drugs; drugs includes [sic] marijuana and alcohol. Gang[s], you 

can’t post anything on social media related to gangs or any money that might have been 

attained. I don’t [think] this is going to be a problem but I have [to] tell you that. 

 No illegally attained funds can be shown on Facebook or any social media and 

anything related to a gang, you can’t do that on social media.” 

The dispositional order form includes a checkmark next to the words “no gang contact or 

activity” and a handwritten addition stating “no guns, no drugs.” The probation order includes 

handwritten additions stating “no social media,” “no gangs, guns, or drugs,” and “no gang 

involvement.” The trial court did not ask whether these probation conditions interfered with 

the respondent’s family, school, or employment relationships, although the respondent signed 

the probation order, which states “[b]y signing, *** you are indicating that you have read and 

fully understand all of the conditions of your Probation.” The respondent neither objected to 

the probation conditions at the dispositional hearing nor filed a postadjudication motion. This 

appeal followed. 

¶ 6 On appeal, the respondent first contends that the probation conditions imposed by the trial 

court, including that he have “no gang contact” and not post “anything related to a gang” on 

social media, constitute overbroad impairments on his right to freedom of speech and 

association under the first amendment of the United States Constitution (U.S. Const., 

amend. I). Specifically, he argues that the restrictions lack “commonsense exceptions” for 

“legitimate purposes,” such as contact with family members, classmates, or coworkers who 

might be gang members, and provide “no guidance” as to what kind of social media usage 

would violate the no-contact order. Because the respondent lives in an area with gang activity, 

he also maintains there is an “unreasonable risk” that he could violate the “blanket” restrictions 

unknowingly and unintentionally. 

¶ 7 The State, in response, argues that the respondent forfeited his claim of error by not raising 

it in the trial court. On the merits, however, the State contends that the respondent’s argument 

regarding his probation conditions amounts to an as-applied constitutional challenge, which 

fails because the record does not establish that his personal circumstances warrant any 

exceptions to the trial court’s order. According to the State, there is no evidence establishing 

that anyone in the respondent’s family or school belongs to a gang; in the trial court, he 

identified no legitimate reason for having contact with gang members or posting gang-related 

content on social media; and nothing in the record suggests that he was “confused” about the 

scope of the probation order or has been accused of violating his probation by engaging in 

innocuous conduct. Consequently, the State submits that the respondent’s as-applied 

constitutional challenge relies on “hypothetical examples” and, based on the record, is not 

justiciable. 

¶ 8 The respondent acknowledges that he did not object to the conditions of his probation in 

the trial court but maintains that this court should review his claim of error under the first or 

second prong of the plain-error doctrine. The first inquiry before determining whether there 

was a plain error is to determine whether there was a clear and obvious error. People v. 

Eppinger, 2013 IL 114121, ¶ 19. Absent an error, there can be no plain error and the 

respondent’s forfeiture will be honored. Id.

¶ 9 Turning to the merits, we begin by noting that delinquency proceedings are protective in 

nature and are intended to correct and rehabilitate, not to punish. In re Jonathon C.B., 2011 IL 

107750, ¶ 94. To this end, section 5-715(2)(s) of the Juvenile Court Act of 1987 (Act) (705 
- 4 - 

ILCS 405/5-715(2)(s) (West 2016)) sets forth terms that the court may impose as conditions of 

juvenile probation, including that a minor “refrain from having any contact, directly or 

indirectly, with certain specified persons or particular types of persons, including but not 

limited to members of street gangs.” The court may also order probation conditions not 

enumerated in the Act in order to “achieve the goals of fostering rehabilitation and protecting 

the public.” In re J.W., 204 Ill. 2d 50, 77 (2003); 705 ILCS 405/5-715(2)(u) (West 2016). 

¶ 10 Although the trial court has “wide latitude” in imposing probation conditions, its 

“discretion is limited by constitutional safeguards and must be exercised in a reasonable 

manner.” J.W., 204 Ill. 2d at 77. “To be reasonable, a condition of probation must not be overly 

broad when viewed in the light of the desired goal or the means to that end.” Id. at 78. Thus, 

“[w]here a condition of probation requires a waiver of precious constitutional rights, the 

condition must be narrowly drawn; to the extent it is overbroad it is not reasonably related to 

the compelling state interest in reformation and rehabilitation and is an unconstitutional 

restriction on the exercise of fundamental constitutional rights.” (Internal quotation marks 

omitted.) Id. at 78-79. 

¶ 11 When assessing the reasonableness of a probation condition, “it is appropriate to consider 

whether the restriction is related to the nature of the offense or the rehabilitation of the 

probationer.” Id. at 79. Other considerations include (1) whether the probation condition 

reasonably relates to the rehabilitative purpose of the legislation, (2) whether the public value 

in imposing the probation condition “manifestly outweighs the impairment to the probationer’s 

constitutional rights,” and (3) “whether there are any alternative means that are less subversive 

to the probationer’s constitutional rights, but still comport with the purposes of conferring the 

benefit of probation.” Id. Whether a condition of probation violates a probationer’s 

constitutional rights is a question of law, and our review is, therefore, de novo. See People v. 

Burns, 209 Ill. 2d 551, 560 (2004) (“The standard of review for determining whether an 

individual’s constitutional rights have been violated is de novo.”).

¶ 12 In In re Omar F., 2017 IL App (1st) 171073, this court followed the analysis set forth in 

J.W. to examine the constitutionality of probation conditions that restricted a minor’s gang 

contacts and social media usage after he was adjudicated delinquent for committing armed 

robbery. Specifically, the trial court ordered that the minor “stay away from gangs, guns, and 

drugs”; “clear” references to those topics from his social media; remove “pictures” of him with 

gang members from social media; and avoid “gang contact or activity.” (Internal quotation 

marks omitted.) Id. ¶¶ 31-32. On review, we found that “attempting to limit the minor 

respondent’s contact (real or virtual) with gang members was a valid condition of probation 

because it was related to his rehabilitation,” particularly where he denied being in a gang but

had friends who were gang members. Id. ¶ 62. We noted, however, that neither the “no 

contact” provision nor the social media restriction allowed exceptions “for people based on 

familial, employment, or educational relationships” or included any “explanation as to what 

type of contact (physical or online), no matter how innocuous, will result in a probation 

violation.” Id. ¶ 63. Consequently, we held that “the probationary conditions as articulated by 

the trial court were overbroad and not narrowly tailored so as to be unreasonable.” Id.

¶ 13 The State contends that Omar F. is inapposite and relies on a “flawed constitutional 

analysis” because the minor in that case essentially raised an as-applied constitutional 

challenge to his gang-related probation conditions and, as here, “no evidence” showed that his 

family members, classmates, or coworkers belonged to a gang. We disagree and decline to 
- 5 - 

analyze the respondent’s argument regarding his probation conditions under the framework for 

an as-applied constitutional challenge where our supreme court has explained that the relevant 

inquiry is whether the conditions are reasonable. See J.W., 204 Ill. 2d at 78 (“when deciding 

the propriety of a condition of probation imposed in a particular case, whether explicitly 

statutory or not, the overriding concern is reasonableness”); People v. Meyer, 176 Ill. 2d 372, 

373, 377-78 (1997) (analyzing the reasonableness of an adult probation condition); In re J.G., 

295 Ill. App. 3d 840, 843 (1998) (examining the reasonableness of a juvenile probation 

condition). The State further argues that J.W. is distinguishable because, in that case, the trial 

court disregarded statutory language that required it to identify appropriate exceptions to a 

condition of probation that banished a delinquent minor from his hometown. See J.W., 204 Ill. 

2d at 81. The supreme court noted, however, that the statutory language at issue “mirror[ed] 

the constitutional requirement that the condition of probation be narrowly drawn.” (Emphasis 

added.) Id. That same constitutional requirement for narrow tailoring and reasonableness, as 

articulated in J.W. and applied in Omar F., also applies here. 

¶ 14 Turning to the present case, we find, at the outset, that the gang-related restrictions on the 

minor’s contacts and social media usage constitute valid conditions of probation because they 

relate to his rehabilitation. According to the social investigation report, the respondent lives in 

an area with gang activity and has friends who are gang members. He denied belonging to a 

gang, but his mother believed that he participated in the offense because he was “with the 

wrong people” and stated that, approximately one year after the offense, he still “needs to stay 

away from negative peers.” Given this evidence, along with the trial court’s responsibility as a 

parens patriae, we conclude that the court’s attempt “to limit [the respondent’s] contact (real 

or virtual) with gang members was a valid condition of probation.” Omar F., 2017 IL App (1st) 

171073, ¶ 62; see also In re Presley, 47 Ill. 2d 50, 56 (1970) (recognizing that “[t]he State, as 

parens patriae, clearly has an interest in safeguarding the lives of delinquent minors, as well as 

preserving an orderly society”).

¶ 15 Having found a valid connection between the respondent’s probation conditions and his 

rehabilitation, we next consider whether those conditions were so overbroad as to be 

unreasonable. The trial court’s order, as noted, prohibited the respondent from “gang contact” 

and posting “anything related to a gang” on social media. These conditions allow no 

exceptions for contact or social media postings related to a legitimate purpose, such as 

communication with family, classmates, or coworkers. And, although the trial court specified 

that the respondent could not post about money “attained” through gang activity, it offered no 

guidance as to whether and under what circumstances a social media “posting” could 

constitute prohibited “contact” for purposes of a probation violation. See, e.g., Packingham v. 

North Carolina, 582 U.S. ___, ___, 137 S. Ct. 1730, 1735 (2017) (recognizing that “[s]ocial 

media offers relatively unlimited, low-cost capacity for communication of all kinds” (internal 

quotation marks omitted)). Consequently, we find that the gang-related probation conditions 

imposed by the trial court in this case, like the probation conditions in Omar F., were 

overbroad and, therefore, erroneous. 2017 IL App (1st) 171073, ¶ 63. 

¶ 16 In reaching this conclusion, we are not unmindful that, in In re R.H., 2017 IL App (1st) 

171332, ¶¶ 2-4, a panel of this court held that a probation condition that restricted a delinquent 

minor from posting about “gangs, guns, or drugs on social media” was not unconstitutional. 

For several reasons, we decline the State’s invitation to follow R.H. in this case. 
- 6 - 

¶ 17 First, R.H. analyzed the gang-related probation condition as a content-based restriction on 

speech, and concluded that it survived strict scrutiny because it was narrowly tailored and 

advanced a compelling state interest in “preventing [the minor] from further criminal acts.” Id.

¶¶ 13, 19, 25. This analysis, however, overlooks our supreme court’s directive that the 

“overriding concern” in evaluating a condition of probation is whether it is reasonable. See 

J.W., 204 Ill. 2d at 78. Second, although the trial court in R.H. also prohibited the minor from 

gang contact, the minor did not challenge the no-contact order on appeal. In re R.H., 2017 IL 

App (1st) 171332, ¶ 43. Therefore, the R.H. panel distinguished Omar F., where the minor 

challenged both a no-contact order and social media restrictions, and our opinion analyzed the 

two conditions together. Id. ¶ 44. The respondent in this case, as in Omar F., challenges 

probation conditions restricting both his in-person contacts and his social media usage and, as 

explained supra, both conditions were overbroad. Third, R.H. is factually distinct from the 

case at bar. In R.H., the evidence showed that the respondent “was affiliated” with a gang, 

“used his social media accounts to taunt rival gang members,” and “posted a number of 

pictures of himself displaying gang signs, posing with guns, and smoking what appears to be 

cannabis.” Id. ¶ 18. Here, the respondent lived in a neighborhood where there was a gang 

presence and had friends who were in a gang, but no evidence established that he belonged to a 

gang or had posted gang-related material on social media at the time of his dispositional 

hearing. Consequently, R.H. is inapposite and does not change our determination that, in 

accordance with J.W. and Omar F., the probation conditions imposed in this case were 

overbroad and unreasonable. 

¶ 18 Because we find error, we must determine whether the error rose to the level of plain error 

so as to permit our review. People v. Fort, 2017 IL 118966, ¶ 18. The plain-error doctrine is a 

narrow and limited exception to the general forfeiture rule allowing a reviewing court to 

consider a forfeited issue that affects substantial rights. People v. Herron, 215 Ill. 2d 167, 

177-79 (2005). In the sentencing context, we will review an error that is not properly preserved 

as plain error where (1) the evidence is closely balanced or (2) the error is so fundamental that 

it may have deprived the respondent of a fair sentencing hearing. People v. Thomas, 178 Ill. 2d 

215, 251 (1997). 

¶ 19 The respondent contends that this court should review his sentencing challenge under 

either the first or second prong of the plain-error doctrine. As to the first prong, he argues that 

evidence of his gang involvement was closely balanced because his offense was not gang 

related, no evidence showed that his social media included gang content, and according to the 

social investigation report, he denied being in a gang and stated that only “some” of his friends 

are gang members. Based on the same facts, he maintains that the trial court’s imposition of 

“blanket” probation conditions was “arbitrary” and, therefore, also constituted second-prong 

plain error. 

¶ 20 We elect to review the probation conditions under the second prong of the plain-error 

doctrine, as the gang-related restrictions imposed by the trial court, while valid, were so vague 

as to affect the integrity of the respondent’s dispositional hearing. Indeed, “[t]he judicial 

process of permitting social rehabilitation as a condition of probation depends on evidence of 

the need for such social rehabilitation but also clear parameters in setting out how the 

rehabilitation is to proceed.” Omar F., 2017 IL App (1st) 171073, ¶ 68. As this court has 

recognized, the prevalence of gangs in certain areas of Chicago renders “a blanket prohibition 

against contact with gangs *** too general and overbroad to provide a juvenile with clear 
- 7 - 

parameters about how to comply with the conditions of his probation.” Id. When, as here, “the 

parameters are so vague, overbroad, or general that a juvenile could be inadvertently caught 

violating probation in a number of scenarios, including when conducting himself in a 

constitutionally protected manner, then the judicial process is not functioning as intended,” 

and “[t]his breakdown in the judicial process constitutes second-prong plain error.” Id. In this 

case, although the respondent signed his probation order, the trial court made no inquiry as to 

whether the probation conditions would unreasonably impinge on his contact and 

communication with family, classmates, and coworkers. Therefore, based on the same 

considerations set forth in Omar F., we find that the trial court failed to provide a fair process 

for determining what gang-related restrictions on contact and social media usage were 

reasonable. But see R.H., 2017 IL App (1st) 171332, ¶ 38 (finding no second-prong plain error 

where the respondent was not “deprived of an opportunity to question the probation 

condition”).

¶ 21 In summary, we conclude that the imposition of gang-related probation conditions in this 

case was valid but overbroad and, therefore, unreasonable so as to constitute plain error. 

Accordingly, we excuse the respondent’s forfeiture of this issue and vacate that part of the trial 

court’s order requiring him to have “no gang contact” and not post “anything related to a gang” 

on social media. We remand the cause so that the trial court may consider whether such 

restrictions are still warranted, and, if so, what appropriate exceptions for contacts and social 

media postings related to family, school, and employment should be applied. The judgment of 

the trial court is affirmed in all other respects. Based on the foregoing, we need not reach the 

respondent’s additional contention that the social media prohibition violates due process.

¶ 22 Affirmed in part; vacated in part; and remanded.