Court Opinion

ID: 9743274
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 21:29:45.677009+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:24:40.266553
License: Public Domain

JUSTICE FREEMAN, dissenting: At issue in these consolidated cases is section 5 — 125 of the Juvenile Court Act (705 ILCS 405/5 — 125 (West 2000)), which allows the prosecution of a municipal ordinance violation in either the juvenile division or another division of the circuit court. If the State proceeds against the minor under the Juvenile Court Act, the minor is afforded “all the procedural rights of adults in criminal proceedings,” including the right to counsel. 705 ILCS 405/5 — 101(3) (West 2000). If the minor is prosecuted in a division other than the juvenile division, judges have proceeded on the assumption that the minor does not benefit from these procedural protections. The majority holds that section 5 — 125 does not violate equal protection. The majority also holds that section 5 — 125 does not deny defendants due process of law by subjecting them to prosecution without benefit of counsel. Having found the statute constitutional, the majority necessarily holds that the prosecution of defendants in a division of the circuit court other than the juvenile division, and the ensuing orders of supervision, were proper. Surprisingly, the majority then proceeds to use this court’s supervisory authority to hold that the circuit court could not use its contempt power to vindicate its authority and obtain defendants’ compliance with the orders of supervision. The majority vacates the circuit court’s orders finding defendants in contempt and sentencing them to detention, and remands the causes to the circuit court so the cities may file petitions to revoke the orders of supervision or request that the State file delinquency petitions against defendants. For several reasons, I cannot join the majority opinion. First, I believe that section 5 — 125 violates equal protection because it allows minors such as defendants, prosecuted in municipal court, to be treated differently than minors prosecuted under the Act. Second, I believe that principles of due process mandated appointment of counsel for defendants at the initial proceedings. Rather than find the statute unconstitutional, the majority unnecessarily infringes upon the circuit court’s contempt power. The majority fails to recognize the root problem at issue, that is the lack of representation for defendants at the initial proceedings. Lastly, I believe that, pursuant to section 1 — 5 of the Act (705 ILCS 405/1 — 5 (West 2000)), defendants were entitled to appointed counsel at the initial proceedings. Had the majority construed section 1 — 5 so as to afford defendants the right to counsel, an interpretation supported by the plain language of the Act, the majority would have had no occasion to consider the constitutional challenges to section 5 — 125 or to use the court’s supervisory authority to restrict the circuit court’s use of its contempt power. As noted above, the majority finds that section 5 — 125 does not violate equal protection. The majority bases its holding upon a finding that defendants are not similarly situated to minors prosecuted under the Juvenile Court Act. The majority observes that a minor prosecuted under the Act may be placed in a different home environment; may be required to undergo substance abuse assessment and treatment; may be required to remove gang tattoos; may lose driving privileges; and may be placed in a juvenile detention home. 211 Ill. 2d at 466-67. The majority concludes that prosecution by the State under the Act for an ordinance violation has more serious potential consequences for a minor than a quasi-criminal prosecution by a municipality outside the Act, and, consequently the legislature had a reasonable basis to provide heightened safeguards to a minor prosecuted under the Act. 211 Ill. 2d at 467. At the outset, the majority does not explain why some minors are prosecuted under the Juvenile Court Act and others are not. The minors have committed the same infractions. A decision is then made that some of the minors will be prosecuted under the Act, and others will be prosecuted by the municipality. A difference in treatment is already apparent. I also question the premise that a minor prosecuted by a municipality is not entitled to counsel because the minor does not face serious consequences. As illustrated by the orders of supervision entered in the cases at bar, and the relevant statutory provisions on supervision, the consequences to the minor are all too real. Like a minor prosecuted under the Act, the minor prosecuted by a municipality may have to make restitution; attend school; attend a nonresidential program for youth; reside with his parents or in a foster home; perform community service; undergo treatment for drug and alcohol abuse; and undergo medical, psychological or psychiatric treatment. See 730 ILCS 5/5 — 6—3.1 (West 2002). In addition, a minor prosecuted by a municipality may be ordered to pay a fine and court costs; pay a fee of $25 for each month of supervision; work or pursue a course of study or vocational training; contribute to his own support at home or in a foster home; support his dependents; comply with the terms of an order of protection; refrain from entering into a designated geographic area; refrain from having any contact with certain specified persons or particular types of persons; refrain from the use of drugs; refrain from operating any motor vehicle not equipped with an ignition interlock device; attend or reside in a facility established for the instruction or residence of defendants on probation; and submit to such other conditions as the court imposes. See 730 ILCS 5/5 — 6—3.1 (West 2002). Lastly, the minor may be subject to electronic home detention for repeated violation of the conditions of supervision. See 730 ILCS 5/5 — 6—4 (West 2002); 730 ILCS 5/5 — 8A—1 et seq. (West 2002). The majority finds relevant that the minor prosecuted under the Act may be placed in the guardianship of the Department of Children and Family Services. Presumably such placement is in the best interests of the minor. See 705 ILCS 405/1 — 2 (West 2002) (purpose and policy of the Juvenile Court Act); 705 ILCS 405/1 — 3(8) (West 2002) (defining guardianship of the person of a minor as the “duty and authority to act in the best interests of the minor”). Moreover, prosecution outside of the Act and placement of the minor on supervision may be used in a subsequent proceeding to make the minor a ward of the court and place him in the guardianship of the Department of Children and Family Services. See 730 ILCS 405/ 5 — 105 (West 2002) (defining delinquent minor as “any minor who prior to his or her 17th birthday has violated or attempted to violate, regardless of where the act occurred, any federal or State law, county or municipal ordinance”). I note that, in the case at bar, Andrew was made a ward of the court and placed on probation on July 30, 2001. The majority also finds relevant that detention, pursuant to section 5 — 710(1)(a) (v) of the Act (705 ILCS 405/5 — 710(l)(a)(v) (West 2002)), is a sentencing option available to the court when a minor is prosecuted in the juvenile division.2 I acknowledge that section 5 — 710(l)(a)(v) provides for a term of detention. However, under the circumstances at bar, detention would not have been available. Section 5 — 710(1)(a)(viii) of the Act provides that a minor may be “put on probation or conditional discharge and placed in detention under Section 3 — 6039 of the Counties Code for a period not to exceed the period of incarceration permitted by law for adults found guilty of the same offense or offenses for which the minor was adjudicated delinquent, and in any event no longer than upon attainment of age 21; this subdivision (viii) notwithstanding any contrary provision of the law.” (Emphasis added.) 705 ILCS 405/5— 710(l)(a)(viii) (West 2000). Furthermore, section 5 — 710(7) instructs that “In no event shall a guilty minor be committed to the Department of Corrections, Juvenile Division for a period of time in excess of that period for which an adult could be committed for the same act.” (Emphasis added.) 705 ILCS 405/5 — 710(7) (West 2000). Defendants were prosecuted for municipal ordinance violations. The ordinances at issue do not provide for a term of incarceration. See City of Urbana Code of Ordinances §§ 1 — 10, 15 — 32 (1980); Champaign Municipal Code §§ 1 — 21, 23 — 211 (1985). It follows that upon a finding of guilt, defendants would not be subject to detention under section 3 — 6039 of the Counties Code or placed in the custody of the Department of Corrections, Juvenile Division, because an adult committing the same infraction would not be committed to the Department for any length of time. In my view, section 5 — 125 would not violate equal protection only if the court construes section 1 — 5 of the Act (705 ILCS 405/1 — 5 (West 2000)) as giving minors the right to counsel at all proceedings, whether in the juvenile division or in another division of the circuit court. Having rejected defendants’ equal protection challenge to section 5 — 125, the majority holds that due process does not require additional protections for minors who are prosecuted for violations of municipal ordinances in divisions of the circuit court other than the juvenile division. The majority states: “In Scott v. Illinois, 440 U.S. 367, 373, 59 L. Ed. 2d 383, 389, 99 S. Ct. 1158, 1162 (1979), the Court held that ‘the central premise of Argersinger — that actual imprisonment is a penalty different in kind from fines or the mere threat of imprisonment — is eminently sound and warrants adoption of actual imprisonment as the line defining the constitutional right to appointment of counsel.’ Thus, under Argersinger and Scott, the denial of the right to appointed counsel precludes the imposition of a jail sentence for an indigent misdemeanor defendant. This rule requires the trial court to look ahead: the court knows at the time of trial that it may not imprison the defendant unless the defendant was represented by counsel. Argersinger, 407 U.S. at 40, 32 L. Ed. 2d at 540, 92 S. Ct. at 2014. Here, Andrew and Montrell did not receive sentences of detention, or even probation. Thus, they were not entitled to appointed counsel when they pleaded guilty. See City of Dan-ville v. Clark, 63 Ill. 2d 408, 413 (1976) (‘Argersinger *** is not applicable to ordinance violation prosecutions punishable by fine only’). Their uncounseled guilty pleas did not violate due process.” 211 Ill. 2d at 469-70. By finding that section 5 — 125 does not violate constitutional principles the majority necessarily holds that the prosecution of defendants in a division of the circuit court other than the juvenile division, and the orders for supervision which followed, were proper. The majority finds itself in a predicament, however, because of the obvious plight of the minor defendants. The majority expresses “grave concerns about the procedures employed in these cases” and expresses its belief that the procedures “warrant correction.” 211 Ill. 2d at 470. The majority proceeds to do so, through the use of the court’s supervisory authority, by invalidating the lower court’s use of contempt proceedings. 211 Ill. 2d at 477-78. At the outset, the majority acknowledges that the circuit court may use its contempt powers to enforce orders for supervision entered under the Juvenile Court Act. 211 Ill. 2d at 471-72. The majority notes, however, that the circuit court did not impose supervision upon defendants under the Juvenile Court Act. 211 Ill. 2d at 471-72. The majority opines: “Like a juvenile offender sentenced to probation, Andrew and Montrell knew that a violation of the terms of their supervision could result in a detention sentence, but unlike a juvenile offender sentenced to probation, Andrew and Montrell were never sentenced. Their cases were continued with conditions. When they violated these conditions, the Cities did not ask for the cases to proceed to sentencing, but instead asked for detention. As the Cities acknowledge, ‘There is no possibility of incarceration for the ordinance violations under [t]he Cities’ Codes. *** In other words, no violation of an Urbana or Champaign [m]unicipal ordinance can result in incarceration for the offense itself.’ Accordingly, Andrew and Montrell were incarcerated for violating a court order entered on a municipal ordinance violation for which they could not have been sentenced to detention. In effect, the Cities expanded the sentencing options available to the trial courts by pursuing contempt sanctions. In Champaign County, a parallel juvenile justice system exists. [Citation.] The Cities and the Champaign County circuit court have created a two-tiered procedure in which the Cities can bypass the protections of the Juvenile Court Act by filing a concurrent jurisdiction complaint against minors charged with municipal ordinance violations, obtain an order of supervision against such minors, then press contempt proceedings which result in detention when the minors violate the conditions of their supervision. This ‘system’ might be a very good way to deal with recalcitrant minors as a matter of public policy; as a matter of law, it is improper because it substitutes a contempt proceeding for punishment under the municipal codes. It defies reason that municipal ordinance code violations prosecuted outside the Act which themselves are not punishable by imprisonment become punishable by imprisonment simply because the trial court ordered minors to abide by conditions unrelated to the initial violations. We hold that, in the absence of a statute allowing such a procedure, contempt may not be used as punishment for minors who violate orders of supervision entered on municipal ordinance violations which themselves do not permit imprisonment.” 211 Ill. 2d at 475-77. The majority fails to take into consideration the unity of the court system and the traditional use of the contempt power to enforce a court order. The Illinois Constitution provides that all circuit courts have original jurisdiction over all justiciable matters except where the supreme court is specified to have original and exclusive jurisdiction. People v. PH., 145 Ill. 2d 209, 221-22 (1991), citing Ill. Const. 1970, art. VI, § 9. Furthermore, it is the circuit court, as a whole, which is vested with jurisdiction rather than a particular division of the circuit court. P.H., 145 Ill. 2d at 222; People v. DeJesus, 127 Ill. 2d 486, 498 (1989). Juvenile court is a division of a single unified circuit court and whether a minor is tried in juvenile or criminal court is a matter of procedure, not jurisdiction. P.H., 145 Ill. 2d at 222; DeJesus, 127 Ill. 2d at 498; In re Greene, 76 Ill. 2d 204, 213 (1979). From the unified structure of the circuit court follows uniformity in the use of the court’s contempt power. A judge sitting in the juvenile division of the circuit court holds a person in contempt of court based upon the circuit court’s inherent power to vindicate its authority and enforce its orders. Likewise, a judge sitting in another division of the circuit court holds a person in contempt of court based upon the circuit court’s inherent power to vindicate its authority and enforce its orders. The judge in the juvenile division does not exercise the contempt power pursuant to any particular grant in the Juvenile Court Act. Rather, the judge exercises the contempt power as an alternate remedy to the provisions of the Juvenile Court Act. This court has heretofore explained these concepts in In re Baker, 71 Ill. 2d 480 (1978), and In re G.B., 88 Ill. 2d 36 (1981). In In re Baker, 71 Ill. 2d at 480, the State filed a petition for rule to show cause why respondent, a minor otherwise in need of supervision, should not be held in contempt of court. Respondent moved to dismiss the petition on the ground that the exclusive remedy for violation of a court order was a further proceeding under the Juvenile Court Act (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1975, ch. 37, par. 702— 3(d)). The trial judge held that sections 2 — 2(b) and 2 — 3(d) of the Juvenile Court Act (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1975, ch. 37, pars. 702 — 2(b), 702 — 3(d)) were unconstitutional legislative attempts to abridge the court’s contempt powers, held respondent in contempt, adjudged her a delinquent, and placed her on probation. On appeal to this court, the State argued that the Juvenile Court Act and the contempt power were not mutually exclusive and the circuit court’s use of the contempt power was appropriate as an alternative to the remedy provided in the Juvenile Court Act. This court agreed with the State and explained: “A court is vested with inherent power to enforce its orders and preserve its dignity by the use of contempt proceedings. [Citations.] Because such power inheres in the judicial branch of government, the legislature may not restrict its use. [Citations.] That limitation upon legislative action does not, however, preclude the legislature from providing an alternative statutory solution, and that, in our opinion, is the effect of sections 2 — 2(b) and 2 — 3(d). Therefore, the circuit court erred in finding these sections of the Juvenile Court Act unconstitutional. While not now disputing the existence of the contempt power, respondent urges its exercise in the circumstances of this case was unnecessary and erroneous. Her thesis is that since the legislature decided to provide a particular remedy for the violation of a court order, its decision should be respected. Respondent notes that the court’s solution to the runaway problem — placing her on probation with the Department — could have been as well accomplished by proceeding under section 5 — 2(l)(b)(l) (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1975, ch. 37, par. 705 — 2(l)(b)(l)). The flaw in this argument is the fact that respondent agrees that the alternative procedures are available to the court. Since the contempt power exists and there is a factual basis for that holding, the order cannot be said to be erroneous simply because an alternative route to the same objective was available. The trial court made a specific finding that the alternative remedy was ‘without sufficient deterrent effect,’ and respondent has presented nothing which convinces us of any impropriety in that finding.” In re Baker, 71 Ill. 2d at 484-85. In In re G.B., 88 Ill. 2d 36, the minor failed to attend school as directed by the trial court in proceedings under the Juvenile Court Act, and was found in contempt of court. The court placed the minor on probation for a year, ordered him to serve 19 days in a detention center, and again ordered that the minor attend school. The minor failed to attend school and was the subject of a second petition for contempt, which resulted in another order of probation and detention for a period of 60 days. On appeal, the minor argued that he was not subject to a dispositional order of probation under the Juvenile Court Act and the court lacked the authority to accomplish indirectly, by way of contempt, that which it could not do directly under the Juvenile Court Act. This court found the minor’s arguments unpersuasive. Noting there was a specific order that the minor attend school, the court stated: “The contempt proceedings initiated March 5, 1979, were filed because of a violation of this interim order, the validity of which has not been challenged by the parties to this appeal. This, therefore, is not a case governed by the Juvenile Court Act. Rather, the propriety of placing this minor on probation depends upon the court’s power to impose punishment for contempt for the violation of its order. Courts have the inherent power to enforce their orders by way of contempt. [Citations.] The power to punish for contempt does not depend on constitutional or legislative grant. Because the power to enforce court orders through contempt proceedings inheres in the judicial branch of the government, the legislature may not restrict its use.” In re G.B., 88 Ill. 2d at 41. The court therefore held that finding a minor in contempt and placing the minor on probation as punishment for contempt are alternate procedures to those provided in the Juvenile Court Act for dealing with minors who contumaciously violate lawful court orders. In re G.B., 88 Ill. 2d at 42-43. Further, the court held that the trial court could impose incarceration for contempt. In doing so, the court rejected the minor’s argument that the trial court could not impose incarceration because, under the Juvenile Court Act, the trial court was not authorized to incarcerate a minor for violating an order of the court. In re G.B., 88 Ill. 2d at 44-45. The majority cites In re G.B. for the proposition that a trial court may use its contempt powers to enforce orders for supervision entered under the Juvenile Court Act. 211 Ill. 2d at 471-72. The majority then notes the trial courts here did not impose supervision under the Juvenile Court Act. 211 Ill. 2d at 471-72. This distinction is invalid, however, because the trial court’s power to enforce an order for supervision, or any other order, stems not from the Juvenile Court Act but from the judiciary’s inherent power to enforce its orders through contempt proceedings. The majority reasons further: “To hold a defendant in contempt for violating an order deferring judgment misapprehends the nature of the stick associated with the carrot of supervision. When a court imposes supervision, it strikes a deal with the defendant. The judge, in effect, says, ‘Abide by the terms of your supervision, or the court will lift the de facto continuance and sentence you,’ not ‘Abide by the terms of your supervision, or the court will find you in contempt and detain you.’ ” 211 Ill. 2d at 475. It bears repeating that the majority sanctions the use of the contempt power by the juvenile court to enforce orders for supervision. Thus, the majority holds that the juvenile court may find “a defendant in contempt for violating an order deferring” a resolution of a prosecution. 211 Ill. 2d at 475. I note that the circuit court is a unified court system and a juvenile has neither a common law nor a constitutional right to adjudication under the Juvenile Court Act. P.H., 145 Ill. 2d at 223. Consequently, this court cannot “sanction” the use of the contempt power to enforce an order by one division of the circuit court (see 211 Ill. 2d at 471-72) while disallowing its use by another division of the circuit court. The majority concludes “[i]t defies reason that municipal ordinance code violations prosecuted outside the Act which themselves are not punishable by imprisonment become punishable by imprisonment simply because the trial court ordered minors to abide by conditions unrelated to the initial violations.” 211 Ill. 2d at 476. Such is the nature of contempt, however, that a trial court may sentence a litigant to time in jail in a civil proceeding (Williams v. Illinois State Scholarship Comm’n, 139 Ill. 2d 24 (1990); Del Dotto v. Olsen, 257 Ill. App. 3d 463 (1993)), or in the prosecution of an offense for which a term of incarceration is not available (In re G.B., 88 Ill. 2d at 44-45). In ruling that the trial courts could not use contempt proceedings to enforce the orders of supervision, the majority fails to take into consideration the unity of the court system and the power inherent in the circuit court, as a whole, to enforce court orders. The majority sows confusion by approving the use of contempt proceedings in one division of the circuit court and not another.3 The majority’s reasoning also highlights troubling inconsistencies in the proffered analysis on the need for appointed counsel to represent minor defendants. As noted above, the majority holds that section 5 — 125 does not deny defendants due process of law because defendants were not entitled to representation by counsel at the initial proceedings, that is, at the prosecutions of the municipal ordinance violations. However, the majority sanctions the circuit court’s use of the contempt power to enforce orders for supervision entered under the Juvenile Court Act while disallowing the use of the contempt power to enforce orders for supervision entered outside of the Juvenile Court Act. The motivating factor for the difference in treatment seems to be the lack of counsel at the initial proceedings against minor defendants. The majority states: “Though we have sanctioned trial courts to use their contempt powers to enforce orders of supervision entered under the Juvenile Court Act (see In re G.B., 88 Ill. 2d 36, 43 (1981)), the trial courts here did not impose supervision under the Act. If they had, the minors would have enjoyed the benefits of counsel at the outset.” 211 Ill. 2d at 471-72. Yet later in the opinion, the majority emphasizes the need for representation of minor defendants at the initial court proceedings: “ ‘The juvenile needs the assistance of counsel to cope with problems of law, to make skilled inquiry into the facts, to insist upon regularity of the proceedings, and to ascertain whether he has a defense and to prepare and submit it. The child “requires the guiding hand of counsel at every step in the proceedings against him.” ’ (Emphasis added.) In re Gault, 387 U.S. 1, 36, 18 L. Ed. 2d 527, 551, 87 S. Ct. 1428, 1448 (1967), quoting Powell v. Alabama, 287 U.S. 45, 69, 77 L. Ed. 158, 170, 53 S. Ct. 55, 64 (1932). This statement is particularly true when minors admit the charges against them. See In re Beasley, 66 Ill. 2d 385, 397 (1977) (‘courts can *** rely upon the protection which a minor receives through the representation of counsel in assuring that the admissions are voluntary and are not made in ignorance of his rights’).” 211 Ill. 2d at 477-78. The majority’s solicitude for defendants’ lack of counsel at the initial proceedings contrasts sharply with the majority’s ruling that defendants were not entitled to representation by counsel at those proceedings. The inconsistency in the majority’s reasoning is further highlighted by the fact that defendants were represented by counsel at the contempt proceedings. See 211 Ill. 2d at 460, 462-63. It is only at the initial proceedings, where the majority holds due process did not mandate appointment of counsel, that defendants did not have counsel appointed by the courts. Having showcased the disparities in Champaign County’s “parallel juvenile justice system,” the majority could have construed section 1 — 5 or section 5 — 125 so as to afford minors counsel in the prosecution of municipal ordinances. Construing the provisions in that manner would have eliminated the constitutional issues these cases present. See Solid Waste Agency of Northern Cook County v. United States Army Corps of Engineers, 531 U.S. 159, 173, 148 L. Ed. 2d 576, 588, 121 S. Ct. 675, 683 (2001) (“ ‘[w]here an otherwise acceptable construction of a statute would raise serious constitutional problems, [courts] will construe the statute to avoid such problems unless such construction is plainly contrary to the intent of Congress’ ”); quoting Edward J. DeBartolo Corp. v. Florida Gulf Coast Building & Construction Trades Council, 485 U.S. 568, 575, 99 L. Ed. 2d 645, 654, 108 S. Ct. 1392, 1397 (1988); In re Application for Judgment & Sale of Delinquent Properties for the Tax Year 1989, 167 Ill. 2d 161, 168 (1995) (“If there is doubt as to the construction to be given a legislative enactment, the doubt must be resolved in favor of an interpretation which supports the statute’s validity (see Rehg v. Illinois Department of Revenue, 152 Ill. 2d at 512); statutes will be construed to avoid an unconstitutional result (see Sayles v. Thompson (1983), 99 Ill. 2d 122”). In this regard, I base my position upon the Supreme Court’s opinion in Alabama v. Shelton, 535 U.S. 654, 152 L. Ed. 2d 888, 122 S. Ct. 1764 (2002), where the Court required counsel for the defendant even though the defendant received a suspended sentence and was not actually incarcerated. Defendant Shelton appeared pro se at a bench trial for a misdemeanor. The trial court convicted him of the misdemeanor and sentenced him to a 30-day jail term. However, the trial court suspended the sentence and placed Shelton on two years’ unsupervised probation, conditioned on the payment of court costs, a $500 fine, reparations of $25 and restitution of $516.69. Shelton appealed his conviction and sentence on sixth amendment grounds. The Supreme Court of Alabama held that Shelton could not be sentenced to a term of imprisonment absent provision of counsel. Accordingly, the court affirmed Shelton’s conviction and the monetary portion of his punishment, but invalidated the suspended prison sentence. See Alabama v. Shelton, 535 U.S. at 658-60, 152 L. Ed. 2d at 896, 122 S. Ct. at 1768. In the Supreme Court, Shelton argued that an indigent defendant may not receive a suspended sentence unless he is offered or waives the assistance of counsel. The Court agreed, explaining: “In Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335, 344-45 (1963), we held that the Sixth Amendment’s guarantee of the right to state-appointed counsel, firmly established in federal-court proceedings in Johnson v. Zerbst, 304 U.S. 458 (1938), applies to state criminal prosecutions through the Fourteenth Amendment. We clarified the scope of that right in Argersinger, holding that an indigent defendant must be offered counsel in any misdemeanor case ‘that actually leads to imprisonment.’ 407 U.S., at 33. Seven Terms later, Scott confirmed Argersinger’s ‘delimitation],’ 440 U.S., at 373. Although the governing statute in Scott authorized a jail sentence of up to one year, see id., at 368, we held that the defendant had no right to state-appointed counsel because the sole sentence actually imposed on him was a $50 fine, id., at 373. ‘Even were the matter res nova,’ we stated, ‘the central premise of Argersinger — that actual imprisonment is a penalty different in kind from fines or the mere threat of imprisonment — is eminently sound and warrants adoption of actual imprisonment as the line defining the constitutional right to appointment of counsel’ in nonfelony cases. Ibid. “Subsequent decisions have reiterated the ArgersingerScott ‘actual imprisonment’ standard. See, e.g., Glover v. United States, 531 U.S. 198, 203 (2001) (‘any amount of actual jail time has Sixth Amendment significance’); M.L.B. v. S.L.J., 519 U.S. 102, 113 (1996); Nichols v. United States, 511 U.S. 738, 746 (1994) (constitutional line is ‘between criminal proceedings that resulted in imprisonment, and those that did not’); id., at 750 (SOUTER, J., concurring in judgment) (‘The Court in Scott, relying on Argersingerl,] drew a bright line between imprisonment and lesser criminal penalties.’); Lassiter v. Department of Social Servs. of Durham Cty., 452 U.S. 18, 26 (1981). It is thus the controlling rule that ‘absent a knowing and intelligent waiver, no person may be imprisoned for any offense ... unless he was represented by counsel at his trial.’ Argersinger, 407 U.S., at 37. *** Applying the ‘actual imprisonment’ rule to the case before us, we take up first the question we asked amicus to address: Where the State provides no counsel to an indigent defendant, does the Sixth Amendment permit activation of a suspended sentence upon the defendant’s violation of the terms of probation? We conclude that it does not. A suspended sentence is a prison term imposed for the offense of conviction. Once the prison term is triggered, the defendant is incarcerated not for the probation violation, but for the underlying offense. The uncounseled conviction at that point ‘result[s] in imprisonment,’ Nichols, 511 U.S., at 746; it ‘end[s] up in the actual deprivation of a person’s liberty,’ Argersinger, 407 U.S., at 40. This is precisely what the Sixth Amendment, as interpreted in Argersinger and Scott, does not allow. ” Shelton, 535 U.S. at 661-62, 152 L. Ed. 2d at 897-98, 122 S. Ct. at 1769-70. Declaring itself satisfied that Shelton was entitled to appointed counsel at the critical stage when his guilt or innocence of the charged crime was decided and his vulnerability to imprisonment was determined, the Court invalidated Shelton’s suspended jail term. Returning to the cases at bar, the trial courts did not merely require that defendants pay a fine. Rather, the trial courts imposed on defendants terms of supervision conditioned upon defendants attending school and meeting certain other requirements. As the majority opinion notes: “Andrew and Montrell knew that a violation of the terms of their supervision could result in a detention sentence.” 211 Ill. 2d at 475. The fact that the trial courts contemplated additional punishment, whether that punishment be termed punishment for contempt of court or punishment for violation of the conditions of supervision, can be seen clearly from this exchange between the trial court and Andrew: “THE COURT: Now, all I’m ordering you to do is what a kid your age is supposed to do. Follow the rules at home, go to school, not being in any trouble at school. You’re there to learn. That’s why there’s no suspensions, no detentions, no truancy, no tardy. And this is for a year; so this is going to be for all next year, too. Do you understand that? [ANDREW]: Yes. THE COURT: What you need to understand is that if you don’t do these things and come back here, the City can ask that you be held in contempt. And that’s different than what you’re here for. You can’t be locked up right now. But if you’re found to be in contempt of court, I can put you in the Detention Center for six months. And at the Detention Center, which you need to understand we have a brand new one which is bars and cinder blocks, that aside from going to school and maybe a half hour a day of recess type situation where you are in a controlled environment, there are no TVs, there are no radios in your room. If you don’t go to school, there is nothing to do. And you have to go to school there, and you won’t be late to school there. So you have the choice to make. You’re either going to do it the way you should do it or you’re going to do it anyway except you’re going to be locked up. Any questions about that? [ANDREW]: No. THE COURT: So it’s up to you. You know what you should do. There is no question that you know what you should do. You just don’t like your situation and you’re acting out and this is going to stop because it doesn’t help you at all. Do you understand me? [ANDREW]: Yes. THE COURT: Do everything you’re supposed to, you’re done with this matter in a year. If you don’t, you’re going to be brought back here. And I want to make sure you understand what’s going to happen. That’s why I told you. Any questions about that? [ANDREW]: No.” (Emphases added.) Not surprisingly, when Andrew skipped school and visited Springfield without his mother’s permission, the trial court sentenced him to probation and 180 days’ detention, 8 days to be served immediately, and the remainder subject to remission. Andrew served an additional 47 days of detention because of subsequent violations of the conditions imposed by the court. As in Shelton, defendants were entitled to representation by counsel at the initial court proceedings. It is at this stage, when guilt was determined and the conditions of supervision imposed, that defendants became vulnerable to detention. The obvious intent to further punish defendants through the imposition of detention made representation necessary. As the majority aptly noted in discussing defendants’ due process challenge, the trial court must look ahead: the trial court knows at the time of trial that it may not imprison the defendant unless the defendant was represented by counsel. See 211 Ill. 2d at 469. Noting that Shelton does not mandate appointment of counsel in cases involving pretrial probation, the majority maintains that appointment of counsel is likewise not mandated in cases involving supervision. See 211 Ill. 2d at 474. The majority’s attempt to equate supervision with pretrial probation is unavailing. As the Court observed in Shelton, 535 U.S. at 671-72, 152 L. Ed. 2d at 904, 122 S. Ct. at 1774-75, pretrial probation is a consensual proceeding which anticipates cessation of prosecution: “Under such an arrangement, the prosecutor and defendant agree to the defendant’s participation in a pretrial rehabilitation program, which includes conditions typical of post-trial probation. The adjudication of guilt and imposition of sentence for the underlying offense then occur only if and when the defendant breaches those conditions.” The defendant agrees to the tolling of the statute of limitations for the crime and to a waiver of the right to a speedy trial. The prosecution agrees to dismiss all charges upon the defendant’s successful completion of the terms of probation. Adversarial proceedings are held in abeyance. A conviction and sentence are not entered unless the defendant violates the terms of probation and either pleads guilty or is found guilty after trial. See Conn. Gen. Stat. § 54 — 56e (2003) (“Any such defendant shall appear in court and shall, under such conditions as the court shall order, be released to the custody of the Court Support Services Division ***. If the defendant refuses to accept, or, having accepted, violates such conditions, the defendant’s case shall be brought to trial” (emphasis added)); N.Y. Grim. Proc. Law § 170.55(3) (McKinney Supp. 2004) (“Upon or after arraignment in a local criminal court upon an information, a simplified information, a prosecutor’s information or a misdemeanor complaint, and before entry of a plea of guilty thereto or commencement of a trial thereof, the court may, upon motion of the people or the defendant and with the consent of the other party, or upon the court’s own motion with the consent of both the people and the defendant, order that the action be ‘adjourned in contemplation of dismissal,’ as prescribed in subdivision two” (emphasis added)). In contrast, adversarial proceedings precede imposition of an order of supervision. The trial court accepts the defendant’s guilty plea or finds the defendant guilty after a bench trial or trial by jury. As the majority concedes, upon violation of the terms of supervision, the court restarts the case from the finding of guilt and imposes a sentence on the original offense. See 211 Ill. 2d at 475. The defendant is not allowed to go behind the guilty plea or have the court vacate the conviction. The majority insists that the description of pretrial probation as “a consensual proceeding which anticipates the cessation of prosecution” applies to supervision as well. 211 Ill. 2d at 474. Not to belabor the point, however, supervision imposed under the Unified Code of Corrections follows an adjudication of guilt. The majority perhaps confuses supervision under the Code with supervision under the Juvenile Court Act. Section 5 — 615 of the Juvenile Court Act provides in part: “(1) The court may enter an order of continuance under supervision for an offense other than first degree murder, a Class X felony or a forcible felony (a) upon an admission or stipulation by the appropriate respondent or minor respondent of the facts supporting the petition and before proceeding to adjudication, or after hearing the evidence at the trial, and (b) in the absence of objection made in open court by the minor, his or her parent, guardian, or legal custodian, the minor’s attorney or the State’s Attorney. (2) If the minor, his or her parent, guardian, or legal custodian, the minor’s attorney or State’s Attorney objects in open court to any continuance and insists upon proceeding to findings and adjudication, the court shall so proceed. * * * (7) If a petition is filed charging a violation of a condition of the continuance under supervision, the court shall conduct a hearing. If the court finds that a condition of supervision has not been fulfilled, the court may proceed to findings and adjudication and disposition.” (Emphases added.) 705 ILCS 405/5 — 615 (West 2002). Thus, it is a continuance under supervision, pursuant to section 5 — 615 of the Juvenile Court Act, which shares common features with pretrial probation. Andrew and Montrell were not prosecuted under the Juvenile Court Act. Rather, they were prosecuted by the municipalities and the circuit court imposed supervision under the Unified Code of Corrections. The majority’s use of the court’s supervisory authority to arrive at a desired result is even more lamentable because the majority could also have effectuated relief for defendants through statutory construction. Defendants maintain that the Juvenile Court Act governs the manner in which juveniles are to be treated in the trial courts of Illinois. Defendants note that section 1 — 5 of the Act (705 ILCS 405/1 — 5 (West 2000)) affords minors the right to counsel in proceedings under the Act. Defendants acknowledge that section 5 — 125, a provision found in article V of the Act, allows prosecution of minors for violations of municipal ordinances in divisions of the circuit court other than the juvenile division, and further provides that said prosecutions may be done without reference to the procedures set out in the article. Defendants believe section 5 — 125 is a limitation on the procedures contained in article V of the Act and not a limitation on the rights afforded minors pursuant to section 1 — 5 of the Act. The State counters that defendants have waived this argument. The State argues further that section 1 — 5 of the Act does not apply to prosecutions of minors outside of the Act. Although the majority rejects defendants’ argument, I believe that the plain language of the Act supports defendants’ position. Article I of the Act contains general provisions applicable to all articles of the Act. Section 1 — 5 of article I affords the minor the right to be represented by counsel in proceedings under the Act. Article V of the Act is devoted to the problem of juvenile delinquency. Section 5 — 125 of article V provides that a minor may be prosecuted and punished for a violation of a municipal ordinance without reference to the procedures set out in the article. Given that section 5 — 125 specifically refers to the procedures under article V, and given that article V contains various procedures applicable solely to delinquent minors, it follows that section 5 — 125 is a limitation on the procedures available to delinquent minors under article V as opposed to procedures generally available to minors pursuant to section 1 — 5 of article I. The primary rule of statutory construction is to ascertain and give effect to the intent of the legislature. People v. Rissley, 206 Ill. 2d 403, 414 (2003); Midstate Siding & Window Co. v. Rogers, 204 Ill. 2d 314, 320 (2003). Where the language of a statute is clear and unambiguous, the only legitimate function of the courts is to enforce the law as enacted by the legislature. Mid-state, 204 Ill. 2d at 320; Henrich v. Libertyville High School, 186 Ill. 2d 381, 391 (1998). In further support of defendants’ argument, I note that earlier versions of section 5 — 125 provided for prosecution and sentencing of the minor for an ordinance violation “without reference to the procedures set out in [the] Act.” See 705 ILCS 405/5 — 4(2) (West 1994); Ill. Rev. Stat. 1973, ch. 37, par. 702 — 7. As part of the Juvenile Justice Reform Provisions of 1998, the statute was amended to read that prosecution and sentencing of a minor for an ordinance violation shall be “without reference to the procedures set out in this Article [V].” See 705 ILCS 405/5 — 125 (West 2000). It is a maxim of statutory construction that “an amendatory change in the language of a statute creates a presumption that it was intended to change the law as it theretofore existed.” Weast Construction Co. v. Industrial Comm’n, 102 Ill. 2d 337, 340 (1984). In amending section 5 — 125, the legislature must have intended to effectuate change. Lastly, I note that certain provisions in article V refer to the Act in general as opposed to procedures available under article V See 705 ILCS 405/5 — 150, 5 — 410 (West 2000). In contrast, other provisions in article V, including section 5 — 125, refer to procedures under the article. See 705 ILCS 405/5 — 135 (West 2000). The legislature presumably differentiated between the provisions for a purpose. Because the majority fails to properly construe section 1 — 5, the majority is constrained to address the constitutional challenges defendants raise and use the court’s supervisory authority with the results noted above. CONCLUSION The cases at bar present a problem not with the use of the contempt power but with the lack of representation at the initial court proceedings. It must be remembered that the minor defendants were represented by counsel at the contempt proceedings. Defendants, however, appeared without aid of counsel at the initial proceedings and pled guilty to the charges against them. The majority’s solicitude for defendants should be translated into representation where it was needed, that is, where the minor defendants pled guilty and were exposed to punishment. The majority forgoes the opportunity to render moot the constitutional challenges to section 5 — 125 by construing section 1 — 5 so as to afford defendants the right to counsel. Instead, the majority attempts to provide help through the use of this court’s supervisory authority, disallowing the use of the contempt power in one division of the circuit court but not another. In doing so, the majority creates confusion and unduly infringes upon the use of the contempt power by the circuit court. I respectfully dissent.  I suggest that a minor, like Montrell, who committed a curfew violation could not have been subjected to detention at any stage of prosecution since the infraction would not have been illegal if committed by an adult. See 705 ILCS 405/1 — 4.1 (West 2002) (“any minor accused of any act under federal or State law, or a municipal ordinance that would not be illegal if committed by an adult, cannot be placed in a jail, municipal lockup, detention center or secure correctional facility”); 705 ILCS 405/5 — 401 (West 2002).   The majority’s directive that the circuit court may not use the contempt power in a prosecution outside the Act may also conflict with legislative intent. Section 5 — 6—1 of the Unified Code of Corrections provides that the “Chief Judge of each circuit shall adapt a system of structured, intermediate sanctions for violations of the terms and conditions of a sentence of probation, conditional discharge or disposition of supervision.” 730 ILCS 5/5 — 6—1 (West 2002). Pursuant to section 5 — 6—4 and 5 — 8A—1 of the Code (730 ILCS 5/5 — 6—4, 5 — 8A—1 (West 2002)), intermediate sanctions shall include a term of electronic home detention. Clearly, the legislature intended that the circuit court have at its disposal a variety of tools and sanctions to use in dealing with recalcitrant minors.