In this task, you will be shown a prompt from a judicial decision and multiple holding statements derived from citations following text in a legal decision. Holdings represent the governing legal rule when the law is applied to a particular set of facts. There are five answer choices for each citing text. The correct answer is the holding statement that corresponds to the citing text. The four incorrect answers are other holding statements. You should find the correct option. There is a <HOLDING> token in the position of the citing text prompt where the holding statement was extracted.
Q: 705 ILCS 405/5 815(f) (West 2000). Section 5 87(b) of the Unified Code of Corrections (the Code) provides the rules for calculating the length of imprisonment for offenders and states that "[t]he offender shall be given credit on the determinate sentence *** for time spent in custody as a result of the offense for which the sentence was imposed." 730 ILCS 5/5 87(b) (West 2000). Whether an habitual juvenile offender is entitled to credit for predisposition detention is an issue of first impression. Our appellate court districts are divided on the issue of whether a delinquent minor should receive sentence credit for time spent in predisposition detention. Compare In re E.C., 297 Ill. App. 3d 177 (4th Dist. 1998), and In re Jesus R., 326 Ill. App. 3d 1070 (4th Dist. 2002) (<HOLDING>), with In re 299 Ill. App. 3d 327 (2d Dist.
Holding statements: (A) holding that a credit issuing bank did not breach a credit agreement when it unilaterally modified the terms (B) holding that juveniles are not entitled to jury trials (C) holding that juveniles sentenced to indeterminate terms are entitled to predisposition credit (D) holding that when a defendant is sentenced to a term that does not exceed the statutory maximum allowed for an indeterminate amount of the drug involved the jurys determination of drug quantity is practically irrelevant (E) holding juveniles do not have constitutional right to a jury trial but striking down statute that allowed juveniles to receive adult sentence without a jury trial three justices dissented reasoning juveniles should be entitled to a juiy trial under all cases because changes to juvenile justice code treated juveniles like criminals
A:
(C)