Case Name: THE CITY OF CHAMPAIGN, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. MONTRELL D.H., Defendant-Appellant
Court: Illinois Appellate Court
Jurisdiction: Illinois
Decision Date: 2003-02-07
Citations: 336 Ill. App. 3d 558
Docket Number: No. 4—02—0125
Parties: THE CITY OF CHAMPAIGN, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. MONTRELL D.H., Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: Illinois Appellate Court Reports, Third Series
Volume: 336
Pages: 558–561

Head Matter:
THE CITY OF CHAMPAIGN, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. MONTRELL D.H., Defendant-Appellant.
Fourth District
No. 4—02—0125
Opinion filed February 7, 2003.
COOK, J., dissenting.
Daniel D. Yuhas and Jenifer L. Johnson, both of State Appellate Defender’s Office, of Springfield, for appellant.
Frederick C. Stavins, City Attorney, of Champaign (Rhonda R. Olds, Assistant City Attorney, of counsel), for appellee.

Opinion:
JUSTICE TURNER
delivered the opinion of the court:
In June 2001, plaintiff, the City of Champaign, filed a complaint against defendant, Montrell D.H., alleging he violated article 8, section 23 — 211(b), of the Champaign Code of Ordinances, 1985, as amended (Champaign Code) (Champaign Code of Ordinances, art. 8, § 23 — 211 (1985)). Defendant, 15 years old and pro se, pleaded guilty to the charge, and the trial court placed defendant on six months' supervision with certain conditions. In August 2001, plaintiff filed a petition for adjudication of indirect criminal contempt, asserting defendant violated his supervision conditions on three occasions. After a stipulated bench trial, the trial court found defendant guilty as alleged in the petition. After a November 2001 sentencing hearing, the trial court sentenced defendant to 60 days' detention and 12 months' conditional discharge. In December 2001, the trial court denied defendant's motion to reconsider his sentence. In March 2002, this court granted defendant's motion for leave to file a late notice of appeal.
On appeal, defendant argues section 5 — 125 of the Juvenile Court Act of 1987 (Act) (705 ILCS 405/5 — 125 (West 2000)) violates his equal protection and due process rights. We affirm.
I. BACKGROUND
Plaintiff's complaint alleged that on May 17, 2001, at approximately 12:03 a.m., defendant, 15 years old, was upon a public sidewalk after 11 p.m. on Wednesday night and before 5 a.m. on Thursday morning and not accompanied by a parent, guardian, or other adult person having custody of defendant. On July 6, 2001, defendant appeared with his mother and pleaded guilty to the charge. The trial court entered an order, placing defendant under supervision until January 4, 2002, with several conditions, requiring defendant to (1) "not violate any criminal or municipal statutes" and (2) "[o]bey all household rules."
On August 24, 2001, plaintiff filed a petition for adjudication of indirect criminal contempt, alleging defendant (1) committed retail theft in violation of article 4, section 23 — 69(b)(1), of the Champaign Code (Champaign Code of Ordinances, art. 4, § 23 — 69(b)(1) (1985)), on August 14, 2001; (2) left his residence without his mother's consent on August 3, 2001; and (3) left his residence without his mother's consent on August 17, 2001.
On September 7, 2001, defendant's court-appointed counsel filed a motion to dismiss the charge for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, asserting (1) indirect criminal contempt is a separate action that requires another case number and (2) section 5 — 125 of the Act prohibits a municipal court from placing a minor in detention. On October 5, 2001, the trial court denied defendant's motion and found defendant guilty after a stipulated bench trial.
On November 2, 2001, the trial court sentenced defendant to 60 days' detention with 3 days to be served immediately and 57 days to be served in the future on remission and 12 months' conditional discharge. On November 19, 2001, defendant filed a motion to reconsider sentence, contending the court lacked jurisdiction to impose the term of conditional incarceration. On December 21, 2001, the trial court denied defendant's motion. This appeal followed.
II. ANALYSIS
Defendant argues his underlying conviction for violating article 8, section 23 — 211(b), of the Champaign Code is void because section 5 — 125 of the Act (705 ILCS 405/5 — 125 (West 2000)), which exempts ordinance-violation prosecutions from the procedures set forth in the Act, violates his equal protection and due process rights.
In City of Urbana v. Andrew N.B., 335 Ill. App. 3d 180, 187-88 (2002), this court held that section 5 — 125 of the Act did not violate a juvenile defendant's equal protection and due process rights.
We note that, on appeal, defendant does not challenge the indirect criminal contempt proceedings or his detention sentence. Accordingly, we do not address those issues, nor Justice Cook's dissent.
III. CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated, we affirm the trial court's judgment.
Affirmed.
APPLETON, J., concurs.