Court Opinion

ID: 9386816
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-04-13 18:03:17.225754+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:18:08.679419
License: Public Domain

2023 IL App (1st) 211006

                                                                                FOURTH DIVISION
                                                                            Order filed: April 13, 2023

                     Nos. 1-21-1006, 1-21-1007, 1-21-1008, 1-21-1009,
                    1-21-1010, 1-21-1011, 1-21-1012, 1-21-1013 (cons.)
 ______________________________________________________________________________

                                                 IN THE

                                 APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS

                                            FIRST DISTRICT

 In re D.W., a minor,                                           )   Appeal from the
                                                                )   Circuit Court of
 (The People of the State of Illinois,                          )   Cook County.
                                                                )
          Petitioner-Appellee,                                  )   Nos. 18 JD 925, 18 JD 926, 18 JD
                                                                )   927, 18 JD 928, 18 JD 929,
 v.                                                             )   18 JD 1163, 18 JD 1174, 18 JD
                                                                )   1175
 D.W.,                                                          )
                                                                )   Honorable
          Respondent-Appellant).                                )   Terrence V. Sharkey,
                                                                )   Judge, presiding.

          JUSTICE HOFFMAN delivered the judgment of the court, with opinion.
          Presiding Justice Lampkin and Justice Rochford concurred in the judgment and opinion.

                                             OPINION

¶1       In this consolidated appeal, the respondent, D.W., appeals circuit court judgments revoking

the stays of adult sentences in eight separate extended juvenile jurisdiction (EJJ) proceedings. The

respondent asserts that the judgments must be vacated because the hearing on the State’s petitions

to revoke the stays was conducted in his absence without the court having given him in absentia

admonishments and without the State having provided him with sufficient notice of the hearing.
Nos. 1-21-1006, 1-21-1007, 1-21-1008, 1-21-1009,
1-21-1010, 1-21-1011, 1-21-1012, 1-21-1013 (cons.)

The respondent also contests the evidentiary support for the court’s determination that he

committed a new offense warranting the revocation of the stays of his adult sentences. We agree

with the respondent in part and conclude that, for five of the eight cases at issue, the lack of in

absentia admonishments requires vacation of the respondent’s sentences. However, for the

remaining three cases in which he was properly admonished, we find that notice was sufficient

and that the court’s finding that the respondent committed a new offense was not against the

manifest weight of the evidence. Accordingly, we affirm the other three sentences.

¶2     In June and July 2018, the State filed eleven petitions for adjudication of wardship charging

the respondent with a variety of offenses. Eight of those are relevant to this appeal, and they

included the following charges: one count of Class X aggravated vehicular hijacking (18JD925),

two counts of Class X armed robbery (18JD926 & 18JD929), and five counts of Class 2 possession

of a stolen motor vehicle (PSMV) (18JD927, 18JD928, 18JD1163, 18JD1174, & 18JD1175). The

respondent was seventeen years old at the time of these offenses. The parties agree that at his

arraignments on these charges the respondent received admonishments that he could be tried in

absentia only in cases 18JD1163, 18JD1174, and 18JD1175. The respondent did not receive in

absentia admonishments when he was arraigned in cases 18JD925, 18JD926, 18JD927, 18JD928,

and18JD929.

¶3     On a motion from the State, the prosecutions of each of these cases were designated EJJ

proceedings under section 5-810 of the Juvenile Court Act (“the Act”) (705 ILCS 405/5-810 (West

2018)). In October 2019, the parties reached a plea agreement under which the respondent would

plead guilty to the top offense in each of the eight cases in exchange for a juvenile sentence of

commitment to the Illinois Department of Juvenile Justice (IDJJ) for a period not to exceed his

                                               -2-
Nos. 1-21-1006, 1-21-1007, 1-21-1008, 1-21-1009,
1-21-1010, 1-21-1011, 1-21-1012, 1-21-1013 (cons.)

21st birthday and an adult sentence of fifteen years in prison for case 18JD929, which would be

stayed pending the respondent’s compliance with the conditions of his juvenile sentence. Under

the plea agreement, the remaining seven cases would result in a “finding to stand,” case closed.

The circuit court accepted the respondent’s guilty pleas and later held a sentencing hearing in

December 2019, following which the court sentenced the respondent in all eight cases to

commitment to IDJJ for a period not to exceed his 21st birthday. For the conditional adult

sentences, the court found that the State’s recommendation of fifteen years was not enough to

respect the harm to the victims, so it set the adult sentences as twenty-one years in prison for each

of the three Class X cases, of which the court noted the respondent would need to serve 85 percent,

and three years in prison for each of the five Class 2 cases, with all eight sentences running

concurrently. The court explained to the respondent that the adult sentences would be stayed and

would not take effect unless he committed a new offense or otherwise violated the conditions of

his juvenile sentences.

¶4     The respondent was released from IDJJ in January 2020 and was then due to serve a one-

and-a-half-year aftercare term expiring in July 2021. However, in October 2020, the respondent

was arrested and charged with a new PSMV offense. Accordingly, in March 2021, in each of the

respondent’s eight cases the State filed a petition to revoke the stay of the respondent’s adult

sentence. When the respondent failed to appear for a hearing on the petitions, the court issued a

warrant for the respondent’s arrest.

¶5     At the next hearing on the matter, the respondent’s counsel objected to the case proceeding

in absentia as a violation of the respondent’s right to due process. The court continued the matter

to allow the State to attempt to locate and serve the respondent with notice of the proceeding. At

                                                -3-
Nos. 1-21-1006, 1-21-1007, 1-21-1008, 1-21-1009,
1-21-1010, 1-21-1011, 1-21-1012, 1-21-1013 (cons.)

the subsequent evidentiary hearing on the State’s petitions, the respondent again did not appear.

The State informed the court that it had attempted to serve summonses for all eight cases on the

respondent, the respondent’s parents, and the respondent’s sister, and was only able to complete

service on the respondent’s father. The State averred that it then provided notice to all parties via

publication in the newspaper. Based on those efforts on the part of the State, the court found that

service was complete, and the respondent’s counsel stated that he had no objection to that finding.

¶6     Although the respondent’s counsel did not object to the court’s finding that notice had been

accomplished, counsel did renew his objection to the matter proceeding in absentia. Counsel

pointed out that the respondent had not received in absentia admonishments in five of the eight

cases at issue and that the respondent had a due process right to be present at the evidentiary

hearing on the State’s petitions. Counsel further argued that, based on the discovery that he had

received, he had concerns about the respondent’s fitness for prosecution and that because of the

respondent’s absence he was unable to evaluate the respondent to make a determination about the

respondent’s fitness. The State replied that the respondent had been admonished several times in

several different cases that he could be tried in absentia. Therefore, the State contended, even if

the admonishment had not been given in each case individually, the respondent was generally

aware that he could be tried in absentia.

¶7     After hearing the arguments of the parties, the court ruled that the proceeding could

continue with the respondent in absentia. The court reasoned that, while a respondent must be

admonished that a trial can proceed in his or her absence, the hearing on the State’s petitions is

not a trial. Rather, the court characterized the proceeding as “a ministerial matter of whether or not

I have the ability to lift the stay of mittimus. I deny the Defense's motion and I believe I do have

                                                -4-
Nos. 1-21-1006, 1-21-1007, 1-21-1008, 1-21-1009,
1-21-1010, 1-21-1011, 1-21-1012, 1-21-1013 (cons.)

the ability to ministerially manage my case and ministerially if I want to do it before his 21st

birthday, I think I have the right to do it.” The court then proceeded to take testimony on the State’s

petitions, specifically on the question of whether the State could show by a preponderance of the

evidence that the respondent had committed a new PSMV offense.

¶8     Officer Efrain Carreno testified that on the evening of October 17, 2020, he and two other

officers were on patrol when they observed a black sedan driving without its headlights on. One

of Carreno’s partners ran the sedan’s plate and the partner informed Carreno that the vehicle had

been reported stolen. Defense counsel objected to the testimony concerning the sedan being stolen

on the grounds that it was hearsay, but the court overruled the objection on the basis that the

information was not offered for the truth of the matter but rather as a course of investigation.

¶9     Carreno explained that he notified dispatch of the location of the reportedly stolen sedan

and then continued to follow it. While following the vehicle, an Audi SUV that had been in front

of the black sedan “jerked” out to the side and let the sedan past, before pulling back behind the

sedan. The Audi and the sedan soon stopped on the side of the road, at which point Carreno noticed

that the Audi appeared to be reversing. As Carreno positioned his vehicle behind the Audi, the

driver of the Audi got out of the vehicle while it was still in reverse. The then-driverless Audi

continued reversing and eventually hit the front of Carreno’s vehicle. Carreno then saw the driver

of the Audi look back at him before getting into the passenger side of the black sedan, which then

drove away. Carreno was able to see the driver’s face, and the driver was wearing a distinctive

hooded jacket with white fur around the hood.

¶ 10   Carreno testified that his vehicle was then blocked by the Audi, which was still in reverse.

According to Carreno, the Audi did not have any license plates and had the type of “wrapping”

                                                 -5-
Nos. 1-21-1006, 1-21-1007, 1-21-1008, 1-21-1009,
1-21-1010, 1-21-1011, 1-21-1012, 1-21-1013 (cons.)

that new cars have when they are being transported between a factory and a dealership. Defense

counsel objected to the characterization of the type and purpose of the wrapping as speculation,

and the court sustained the objection, ruling that “[i]t had wrapping on it, but I'll leave it at that.”

¶ 11    A few minutes later, Carreno received a call over the radio that the black sedan had hit

another vehicle. When Carreno and his partners arrived at the scene of the crash, he saw that a

person whom he recognized as the driver of the Audi was in custody. According to Carreno, the

driver stated, “something in my jacket.” Carreno located the driver’s jacket on the ground nearby,

and the driver confirmed that the jacket was his. The jacket was eventually returned to the police

precinct for processing, where, with Carreno present, another officer discovered what Carreno

described as a “key fob to an Audi -- to a sedan. I can't recall the make of it, but he recovered a

key fob from one of the pockets of the jacket.” Carreno also testified that after processing and

impounding the Audi SUV, he observed the vehicle identification number (VIN) to be

WA1ENAFY1L2118653.

¶ 12    Carreno testified that while processing the driver of the Audi he learned that the driver had

the same name and “IR number” as the respondent. The circuit court at this point also took judicial

notice of the fact that the person depicted in the driver’s booking photo was the same person whom

the circuit court knew from prior court appearances to be the respondent.

¶ 13    Next to testify was Christopher Bard, general manager of Audi of Orland Park. Bard

testified that on October 16 or 17, 2020, a shipment of new vehicles arrived at his dealership. The

driver of the truck transporting the vehicles informed Bard that one of the vehicles had been

damaged. Bard then inspected the vehicles on the truck and observed that a gray Audi Q5 SUV

appeared to be damaged in several areas of the rear of the vehicle. Bard confirmed that new

                                                  -6-
Nos. 1-21-1006, 1-21-1007, 1-21-1008, 1-21-1009,
1-21-1010, 1-21-1011, 1-21-1012, 1-21-1013 (cons.)

vehicles arriving at the dealership typically have protective wrapping, and Bard testified that there

was still some wrapping on the damaged SUV.

¶ 14   The State then asked Bard if he knew what had happened to the damaged vehicle, to which

Bard responded that the transport truck driver told him that the vehicle had been stolen from the

truck and had been recovered by police. The transport driver provided Bard with a copy of a police

report regarding the alleged theft. The respondent’s counsel objected to Bard’s testimony on this

subject as hearsay, to which the State responded that the testimony was not being used for the truth

of the matter asserted. Although the State did not offer another basis for the testimony, the court

overruled the respondent’s objection. Bard then confirmed that the police report that the transport

driver gave him listed the VIN for the allegedly stolen vehicle as WA1ENAFY1L2118653. Bard

testified that he had not given anyone permission to possess the vehicle in question, that only Audi

USA has the authority to grant such permission, and that the transport company was the only

person or entity entitled to possess the vehicle during transport to the dealership. The State then

rested its case, at which point the respondent moved to dismiss the State’s petitions. The court

denied the respondent’s motion, and the respondent then rested without presenting evidence.

¶ 15   Following argument from the parties, during which the respondent contended that the State

failed to prove that the vehicle in question was stolen because the State did not present testimony

from anyone at the transport company regarding who had permission to possess the vehicle, the

court found that the State had proven that the respondent had committed a new PSMV offense.

The court explained its ruling as follows:

       “I don't need to be a rocket scientist to figure out that an individual that abandons a car and

       moves it in the direction of a squad car and flees the scene in a -- a -- another vehicle knew

                                                -7-
Nos. 1-21-1006, 1-21-1007, 1-21-1008, 1-21-1009,
1-21-1010, 1-21-1011, 1-21-1012, 1-21-1013 (cons.)

       that this vehicle was stolen. Forget that it was a brand-new Audi. Forget anything else. He

       -- he abandoned that vehicle to hit the squad car, and he took off.

       ***

       But getting out of that vehicle, *** forget that they didn't put on the driver of the vehicle,

       that we didn't know when -- the time and place that it was stolen. I don't think the State is

       required, especially in a preponderance of the evidence standard, to have to prove that this

       individual driving the vehicle knew of the vehicle to be stolen. I'm telling you he knew that

       vehicle to be stolen when he backed it up into the squad car, got out, let the vehicle hit --

       hit the squad car, and then took off in another vehicle and was arrested.”

¶ 16   Accordingly, the circuit court ordered that all of the previously stayed 21-year and 3-year

sentences be executed. The respondent then filed eight separate appeals, one for each of the eight

cases in which an adult sentence was imposed. We have consolidated those appeals and address

them together in this opinion.

¶ 17   The respondent raises what we view as five issues in this appeal. He first raises two

arguments that his right to due process was violated when the court held the evidentiary hearing

on the State’s petitions to revoke the stays of his adult sentences (1) without having provided him

with proper notice of the petitions and (2) without having admonished him in each of his eight

cases that he could be tried in absentia. The respondent then raises two arguments concerning

evidentiary issues, specifically (3) that the State failed to prove that he committed a new PSMV

offense and (4) that the court improperly relied on inadmissible hearsay in reaching its decision on

that matter. Lastly, the respondent argues (5) that the court erred when it stated that he would have

                                                -8-
Nos. 1-21-1006, 1-21-1007, 1-21-1008, 1-21-1009,
1-21-1010, 1-21-1011, 1-21-1012, 1-21-1013 (cons.)

to serve 85 percent, rather than 50 percent, of his 21-year sentence for aggravated vehicular

hijacking.

¶ 18   We find merit in the respondent’s second issue and vacate five of his eight sentences on

the grounds that he was not properly admonished that he could be tried in absentia. However, we

see no merit to issues one, three, and four, and issue five is rendered moot by our resolution of

issue two.

¶ 19   First, the respondent claims that the circuit court failed to comply with statutory

requirements and violated his right to procedural due process when it revoked the stay of his adult

sentences without providing him with sufficient notice. In support of this argument, the respondent

points to section 5-625 of the Act, titled “Absence of minor,” which states:

       (1) When a minor after arrest and an initial court appearance for a felony, fails to appear

       for trial, at the request of the State and after the State has affirmatively proven through

       substantial evidence that the minor is willfully avoiding trial, the court may commence trial

       in the absence of the minor. The absent minor must be represented by retained or appointed

       counsel. If trial had previously commenced in the presence of the minor and the minor

       willfully absents himself for 2 successive court days, the court shall proceed to trial. All

       procedural rights guaranteed by the United States Constitution, Constitution of the State of

       Illinois, statutes of the State of Illinois, and rules of court shall apply to the proceedings the

       same as if the minor were present in court. The court may set the case for a trial which may

       be conducted under this Section despite the failure of the minor to appear at the hearing at

       which the trial date is set. When the trial date is set the clerk shall send to the minor, by

       certified mail at his or her last known address, notice of the new date which has been set

                                                 -9-
Nos. 1-21-1006, 1-21-1007, 1-21-1008, 1-21-1009,
1-21-1010, 1-21-1011, 1-21-1012, 1-21-1013 (cons.)

       for trial. The notification shall be required when the minor was not personally present in

       open court at the time when the case was set for trial.” (Emphasis added.) 705 ILCS 405/5-

       625(1) (West 2020).

¶ 20   Although caselaw interpreting this section of the Act is virtually nonexistent, the

respondent points out that the language at the end of subsection (1) regarding notice by certified

mail is substantially similar to language used in the section’s adult counterpart in the Code of

Criminal Procedure (see 725 ILCS 5/115-4.1(a) (West 2020) (“When such trial date is set the clerk

shall send to the defendant, by certified mail at his last known address indicated on his bond slip,

notice of the new date which has been set for trial.”)). Given that similarity, the respondent argues

that we should look to caselaw interpreting section 115-4.1(a) for guidance, and specifically the

case of People v. Ramirez, 214 Ill. 2d 176, 184 (2005), in which the supreme court held that the

State must strictly comply with the statute’s certified mail requirements. If we were to apply that

rule to this case, the respondent contends, the State’s attempt to accomplish service by publication

would be inadequate.

¶ 21   However, we do not agree with the respondent’s view of this issue. The problem with the

respondent’s reliance on section 5-625 of the Act is that it is a component of Part 6 of the Act,

which concerns “Trial.” Instead, we believe that the provision that should be applied to this case

is actually contained in Part 7 of the Act, which more appropriately concerns “Proceedings After

Trial, Sentencing.” The specific provision that covers the proceedings at issue is section 5-720,

which is titled “Probation revocation.” Although section 5-720 expressly addresses violations of

probation and of conditional discharge, both parties have likened EJJ proceedings to violation-of-

probation proceedings, and our court has generally agreed with that comparison. See In re E.W.,

                                               - 10 -
Nos. 1-21-1006, 1-21-1007, 1-21-1008, 1-21-1009,
1-21-1010, 1-21-1011, 1-21-1012, 1-21-1013 (cons.)

2015 IL App (5th) 140341, ¶ 20 (“[T]he EJJ procedure is substantially similar to the procedure

followed for the revocation of probation.”). Indeed, the split sentences that follow a finding or plea

of guilt in an EJJ proceeding are substantially similar to a probationary sentence or conditional

discharge in that the respondent can avoid a more-severe sentence by complying with certain

conditions and by not committing any new offenses. See 705 ILCS 405/5-810(4) (West 2020) (“If

an extended jurisdiction juvenile prosecution under subsection (1) results in a guilty plea, a verdict

of guilty, or a finding of guilt, the court shall impose the following: (i) one or more juvenile

sentences under Section 5-710; and (ii) an adult criminal sentence ***, the execution of which

shall be stayed on the condition that the offender not violate the provisions of the juvenile

sentence.” (Emphasis added.)). Accordingly, we believe that it is appropriate to apply section 5-

720 to EJJ proceedings.

¶ 22   Section 5-720 provides the procedure to be followed when the State seeks to revoke a

juvenile’s probation or other conditional release. Subsection (1)(c) of the statute provides, in

relevant part, that “[i]f a petition is filed charging a violation of a condition of probation or of

conditional discharge, the court shall *** notify the persons named in the petition under Section

5-520, in accordance with the provisions of Section 5-530.” Section 5-530, in turn, which is titled

“Notice,” provides, in relevant part:

       “(1) A party presenting a supplemental or amended petition or motion to the court shall

       provide the other parties with a copy of any supplemental or amended petition, motion or

       accompanying affidavit not yet served upon that party, and shall file proof of that service,

       in accordance with subsections (2), (3), and (4) of this Section. Written notice of the date,

                                                - 11 -
Nos. 1-21-1006, 1-21-1007, 1-21-1008, 1-21-1009,
1-21-1010, 1-21-1011, 1-21-1012, 1-21-1013 (cons.)

       time and place of the hearing, shall be provided to all parties in accordance with local

       court rules.

       (2)(a) On whom made. If a party is represented by an attorney of record, service shall be

       made upon the attorney. Otherwise service shall be made upon the party.***” (Emphasis

       added.)

Thus, under these statutory provisions, there is no requirement that the respondent be personally

served via certified mail. Rather, sections 5-720 and 5-530 together provide that when the State

files a petition alleging a violation of probation or of the terms of conditional discharge, or a

petition to revoke the stay of an adult sentence in an EJJ proceeding, service on the respondent is

to be accomplished via service on respondent’s counsel, if the respondent is so represented. The

respondent in this case does not dispute that his counsel was served with the State’s petitions to

revoke the stays of his adult sentences. As a result, the State complied with the statutory notice

requirements.

¶ 23   Statutory compliance notwithstanding, the respondent also contends that service by

certified mail should be required as a matter of due process. It is true that notice is one of the

hallmarks of procedural due process. In re E.W., 2015 IL App (5th) 140341, ¶ 32. “However, due

process is a flexible concept, such that not all situations that call for procedural safeguards require

the same kind of procedure.” Id. (citing Lyon v. Department of Children & Family Services, 209

Ill. 2d 264, 272 (2004)). And defendants in violation-of-probation (VOP) proceedings, to which

both parties have likened EJJ proceedings, are only entitled to the “minimum requirements” of due

process. Id. “These ‘minimum requirements’ include the following: written notice of the claimed

probation violation; disclosure to the probationer of the evidence against him; the opportunity to

                                                - 12 -
Nos. 1-21-1006, 1-21-1007, 1-21-1008, 1-21-1009,
1-21-1010, 1-21-1011, 1-21-1012, 1-21-1013 (cons.)

be heard in person and present evidence; and the right to confront and cross-examine witnesses.”

Id. (citing People v. Cox, 197 Ill. App. 3d 239, 243 (1990)).

¶ 24   As a simple matter, the respondent received written notice of the allegations against him

by way of service of the State’s petitions on his counsel. Given the well-established rule that

defendants in VOP proceedings are only entitled to minimal due process protections, we cannot

say that this form of notice was a violation of due process in this case.

¶ 25   However, while we do not see any merit to the respondent’s first issue, we do see grounds

for relief in his second. The respondent next contends that the proceedings on the State’s petitions

were improperly conducted in his absence without him having been admonished in five of his

cases that he could be tried in absentia. As we previously recounted above, section 5-625 of the

Act provides that a minor respondent can be tried in absentia if the State “has affirmatively proven

through substantial evidence that the minor is willfully avoiding trial.” Courts interpreting section

5-625’s practically identical adult counterpart, section 115-4.1 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,

have interpreted this provision as requiring the State to prove that the respondent “(1) was advised

of the trial date; (2) was advised that failure to appear could result in trial in absentia; and (3) did

not appear for trial when the case was called.” People v. Smith, 188 Ill. 2d 335, 343 (1999).

Although both the juvenile and adult statutes discuss “trial” in absentia, our court has held that in

absentia admonishments are also required before a probation revocation hearing can be held in a

defendant’s absence. See People v. Sherrod, 279 Ill. App. 3d 383, 387 (1996). As we noted before,

we find that caselaw concerning probation revocation hearings is applicable to the EJJ case before

us. Accordingly, the evidentiary hearing on the State’s petitions could not be held in the

respondent’s absence without him having been given in absentia admonishments.

                                                 - 13 -
Nos. 1-21-1006, 1-21-1007, 1-21-1008, 1-21-1009,
1-21-1010, 1-21-1011, 1-21-1012, 1-21-1013 (cons.)

¶ 26   We note that although the circuit court stated that it did not believe that in absentia

admonishments were required in this case because the proceeding was “ministerial” in nature, it

most definitely was not. “Ministerial acts are ‘those which a person performs on a given state of

facts in a prescribed manner, in obedience to the mandate of legal authority, and without reference

to the official's discretion as to the propriety of the act.’ ” Monson v. City of Danville, 2018 IL

122486, ¶ 30 (quoting Snyder v. Curran Township, 167 Ill. 2d 466, 474 (1995)). Discretionary

acts, on the other hand, “involve the exercise of personal deliberation and judgment in deciding

whether to perform a particular act, or how and in what manner that act should be performed.”

Wrobel v. City of Chicago, 318 Ill. App. 3d 390, 395 (2000) (citing D.M. v. National School Bus

Service, Inc., 305 Ill. App. 3d 735, 739 (1999)). The circuit court in this proceeding was tasked

with hearing and ruling on the admissibility evidence, judging the credibility of witnesses, and

determining whether the State had proven certain facts. Unlike a ministerial task, the court was not

compelled to take any particular action. Rather, it had the discretion in multiple areas and in the

ultimate determination of whether the State had established grounds to revoke the stays of the

respondent’s adult sentences. Cf. Braglia v. McHenry County State's Attorney's Office, 371 Ill.

App. 3d 790, 795 (2007) (determining that a duty was ministerial because it did not involve holding

a hearing, engaging in fact-finding, or passing upon any controversial points of law). Accordingly,

this was not a ministerial proceeding, and in absentia admonishments were required before the

proceedings at issue could be conducted in the respondent’s absence.

¶ 27   It is undisputed that the respondent did not receive in absentia admonishments in all three

of his Class X cases (18JD925, 18JD926, & 18JD929) and in two of his Class 2 cases (18JD927

& 18JD928). But, while acknowledging that fact, the State contends that the circuit court

                                               - 14 -
Nos. 1-21-1006, 1-21-1007, 1-21-1008, 1-21-1009,
1-21-1010, 1-21-1011, 1-21-1012, 1-21-1013 (cons.)

substantially complied with the in absentia requirements and that the respondent was generally

aware that he could be tried in absentia because he had been properly admonished in other cases

and on three separate occasions. We reject this argument.

¶ 28    There is a reason that courts spend so much time informing defendants of their rights and

admonishing them about the legal consequences that certain actions have on those rights. That is

because virtually all defendants are not trained in the law, and we cannot assume that they know

all of their rights and how their rights might change over the course of a case or be affected by

certain decisions that they might make. We cannot assume, for instance, that the respondent in this

case would know that he could be tried in absentia in all of his cases when he was only admonished

of that consequence in a few of them, and in none of his Class X cases. When courts interpret

ambiguous statutes, they sometimes apply the guiding principle that “the expression of one thing

is the exclusion of another.” Metzger v. DaRosa, 209 Ill. 2d 30, 44 (2004) (“This rule of statutory

construction is based on logic and common sense. It expresses the learning of common experience

that when people say one thing they do not mean something else.”). We could hardly fault someone

in the respondent’s position from applying that same idea and inferring that the absence of in

absentia admonishments in his Class X cases, when he was given such admonishments in his Class

2 cases, means that he could not be tried in absentia in those Class X cases. This idea is further

bolstered when we look at the particular language that the court used in the in absentia

admonishments that it did give the respondent.

¶ 29   At the arraignment for cases 18JD930 (on which the State did not move forward) and

18JD1163, the court told the respondent that “[o]n both of the petitions” he could be tried in

absentia, and in 18JD1174 and 18JD1175 the court informed the respondent that he could be tried

                                              - 15 -
Nos. 1-21-1006, 1-21-1007, 1-21-1008, 1-21-1009,
1-21-1010, 1-21-1011, 1-21-1012, 1-21-1013 (cons.)

in absentia “on both of these charges” if he did not return to court. Thus, even in the cases in which

the court gave the respondent in absentia admonishments, the admonishments contained restrictive

phrasing limiting them to the individual charges on which the respondent was being arraigned at

the time. Accordingly, we can hardly say that the respondent should have known that he could be

tried in absentia in the cases in which he was not admonished about that risk, given the restrictive

language used in the admonishments that he did receive.

¶ 30    While it is true that only “substantial compliance” is required when it comes to

admonishing a respondent that he or she can be tried in absentia (People v. Liss, 2012 IL App (2d)

101191, ¶ 17), the admonitions given to the respondent in this case did not meet even that lesser

standard. When an accused is being prosecuted in multiple cases at the same time, he or she has

the full panoply of constitutional rights in each individual case and can only waive those rights by

doing so in each case individually. See, e.g., People v. Ogiela, 2022 IL App (2d) 210429-U, ¶¶ 43–

44 (finding valid jury-trial waivers when the defendant signed separate waivers for each of his

cases) (unpublished order under Supreme Court Rule 23). It follows that admonishments of those

rights must also be made in each individual case. When the court in this case failed to admonish

the respondent in five of his cases that he could be tried in absentia, the court failed to substantially

comply with the requirements of section 5-625 of the Act, and the respondent’s absence from the

evidentiary hearing on five of the State’s petitions to lift the stays of the respondent’s adult

sentences cannot be deemed willful. Cf. People v. Phillips, 242 Ill. 2d 189, 199 (2011) (“[W]hen

a trial judge does not admonish a defendant in any way under section 113–4(e) [the adult

counterpart to section 5-625] at the time of his arraignment, or at any later court date that he is

                                                 - 16 -
Nos. 1-21-1006, 1-21-1007, 1-21-1008, 1-21-1009,
1-21-1010, 1-21-1011, 1-21-1012, 1-21-1013 (cons.)

present, and there has not been a valid waiver of the statutory requirement, there cannot be

substantial compliance with the Code.”).

¶ 31   The State argues in the alternative that, even if the admonishments given to the respondent

in this case were insufficient, the circuit court’s errors are harmless. However, the State does not

cite any cases in which a court has deemed it harmless to hold a hearing in a defendant’s absence

without having given sufficient in absentia admonishments. Instead, the State notes that, as a

general matter, violations of due process can be deemed harmless, and it relies primarily on a

single postconviction case in support of its argument. In People v. Pingleton, 2022 IL 127680, a

defendant filed a petition for postconviction relief alleging ineffective assistance of trial and

appellate counsel. Id. ¶ 10 The petition advanced to the second stage, and the defendant was

appointed counsel. Id. The State then filed a motion to dismiss the petition, which was served on

the defendant’s counsel. Id. ¶ 11. Two years later, the defendant’s counsel moved to withdraw

from the case, alleging that the defendant’s claims could not be supported as a matter of law. Id.

¶ 12. After the defendant filed two responses and his counsel filed a reply, the court set the matter

for a “status” hearing. Id. ¶¶ 14–17.

¶ 32   At the “status” hearing, the court first heard argument on the State’s motion to dismiss,

which the defendant’s counsel did not contest. Id. ¶ 17. The court then heard argument from

defense counsel and the defendant on counsel’s motion to withdraw, which the court took under

advisement before later issuing a written ruling granting counsel’s motion to withdraw and

granting the State’s motion to dismiss on the grounds that the defendant had failed to make a

substantial showing of a constitutional violation. Id. ¶¶ 19–20.

                                               - 17 -
Nos. 1-21-1006, 1-21-1007, 1-21-1008, 1-21-1009,
1-21-1010, 1-21-1011, 1-21-1012, 1-21-1013 (cons.)

¶ 33   On appeal, the defendant argued that he had been denied procedural due process when the

postconviction court granted the State’s motion to dismiss following a “status” hearing without

first giving the defendant notice and an opportunity to be heard. Id. ¶ 22. The appellate court agreed

that the defendant had been denied due process, but it nonetheless held that the error was harmless

because the defendant’s claims lacked merit as a matter of law. Id. ¶¶ 23–25.

¶ 34   The supreme court granted review and reached the same conclusions as the appellate court.

The supreme court observed that harmless-error analysis can be applied to violations of procedural

due process when the violation in question is not a structural error, or one that “results in

‘consequences that are necessarily unquantifiable and indeterminate.’ ” Id. ¶ 44 (quoting People

v. Stoecker, 2020 IL 124807, ¶ 23). The court held that it was able to quantify the effect of the

error in the defendant’s case and determine that it was harmless because it could conclude as a

matter of law that the defendant’s claims were without merit. Id. ¶ 66.

¶ 35   The State asks that we apply the same reasoning here and conclude that any error regarding

the lack of in absentia admonishments is harmless because the evidence of the respondent’s guilt

was more than strong enough to meet the preponderance-of-the-evidence standard applicable in

this case. The State points out that the respondent’s counsel did not present any evidence at the

evidentiary hearing on the State’s petitions and had the opportunity to cross-examine the State’s

witnesses. Thus, the State maintains, the respondent already had an opportunity to rebut the State’s

evidence and there is nothing that would have been any different had the respondent been present

at the hearing.

¶ 36   We do not agree. While the State may be correct that the finding of guilt was not against

the manifest weight of the evidence, as we explain further in the next issue, that does not

                                                - 18 -
Nos. 1-21-1006, 1-21-1007, 1-21-1008, 1-21-1009,
1-21-1010, 1-21-1011, 1-21-1012, 1-21-1013 (cons.)

necessarily mean that the impact of the errors in this case is quantifiable and harmless. In

Pingleton, the due process violations could be deemed harmless because all that was at issue were

pure questions of law and there was very little that the defendant could have added on those issues,

particularly when he had already filed a petition informing the court of his arguments. That is not

what we have here. In this case, the hearing that was held in the respondent’s absence was not one

addressing a purely legal issue but rather one that was primarily concerned with fact-finding.

Unlike a question of law, a question of fact is one to which a respondent can significantly

contribute. Had the respondent been present at the hearing, he would have had the opportunity to

testify and present his side of the case if he wished, and he would have been able to use his personal

knowledge of the facts of the case to assist his counsel in cross-examining the State’s witnesses.

We do not know what impact the respondent’s presence might have had in those regards, and, as

a result, the impact of the error in this case is not quantifiable.

¶ 37    The State points out that the respondent has “given no indication, even hypothetically, that

he could have offered exculpatory testimony at the revocation hearing,” but he is not required to

do so. He has proven that his right to due process has been violated, and it is now the State’s burden

to prove that those constitutional violations are harmless. See People v. Diggins, 2016 IL App (1st)

142088, ¶ 17. Given that the proceeding at issue in this case was an evidentiary hearing at which

the respondent very well may have been able to provide a substantive contribution, the State has

not done so.

¶ 38    Accordingly, we vacate the adult sentences imposed in the five cases in which the

respondent was not admonished that he could be tried in absentia.

                                                 - 19 -
Nos. 1-21-1006, 1-21-1007, 1-21-1008, 1-21-1009,
1-21-1010, 1-21-1011, 1-21-1012, 1-21-1013 (cons.)

¶ 39    But that does not end our inquiry. Because the sentences in the cases in which the

respondent was properly admonished (18JD1163, 18JD1174, & 18JD1175) survive the

respondent’s first two arguments, we must still examine whether the respondent’s remaining

arguments establish reversible error for those three cases.

¶ 40    In his third issue, the respondent contends that the State failed to prove that he committed

a new PSMV offense. At the outset, we note that for this issue we again look to section 5-720 of

the Act (“Probation revocation”) for guidance due to the similarities between VOP proceedings

and the present EJJ proceeding. Subsection (3) of that statute provides that, at the hearing on the

State’s petition alleging a violation of the conditions of the respondent’s sentence, “the State shall

have the burden of going forward with the evidence and proving the violation by a preponderance

of the evidence.” This burden of proof applies to each element of the offense that the respondent

is accused of committing. See People v. Halterman, 45 Ill. App. 3d 605, 608 (1977). When the

circuit court finds that the State has proven a violation, that finding will only be disturbed on appeal

if it is against the manifest weight of the evidence. People v. Colon, 225 Ill. 2d 125, 158 (2007).

“ ‘A judgment is against the manifest weight of the evidence only when an opposite conclusion is

apparent or when findings appear to be unreasonable, arbitrary, or not based on evidence.’ ” People

v. Colquitt, 2013 IL App (1st) 121138, ¶ 28 (quoting Bazydlo v. Volant, 164 Ill. 2d 207, 215

(1995)).

¶ 41    The State alleged that the respondent committed the offense of possession of a stolen motor

vehicle. To prove that allegation, the State was required to show that “[(1)] the [respondent]

possessed the vehicle, [(2)] that he was not entitled to possess the vehicle, and [(3)] that he knew

                                                 - 20 -
Nos. 1-21-1006, 1-21-1007, 1-21-1008, 1-21-1009,
1-21-1010, 1-21-1011, 1-21-1012, 1-21-1013 (cons.)

the vehicle was stolen.” People v. Cox, 195 Ill. 2d 378, 391 (2001) (citing People v. Anderson, 188

Ill. 2d 384, 389 (1999)); see also 625 ILCS 5/4-103(a)(1) (West 2020).

¶ 42    The circuit court in this case found that the State met its burden, with the court explaining

that “he [the respondent] knew that vehicle to be stolen when he backed it up into the squad car,

got out, let the vehicle hit -- hit the squad car, and then took off in another vehicle.” The respondent

does not dispute that the State showed that he was in possession of the Audi SUV that backed into

Officer Carreno’s vehicle, but he argues that the court’s ruling was contrary to the evidence

because the testimony from the State’s witnesses failed to show that he did not have permission to

possess the vehicle and that he knew the vehicle to be stolen.

¶ 43    We disagree and believe that logical inferences from the testimony could have established

the second and third elements. Regarding the respondent’s lack of entitlement to possess the

vehicle, Christopher Bard, the general manager of Audi of Orland Park, confirmed in his testimony

that the company transporting the Audi in question was “the only person or entity which had

permission to have control of that vehicle” while it was being delivered to the dealership. Given

the respondent’s young age and his criminal history involving the theft or possession of stolen

vehicles, it seems highly unlikely that he was employed by the transport company and given

permission to possess a brand-new Audi SUV, and certainly there was no evidence suggesting that

he was. Further, and more in line with the circuit court’s stated reasoning, even if we ignore the

alleged link between the vehicle that Carreno described and the damaged vehicle that was delivered

to Audi of Orland Park, the fact that the respondent crashed and abandoned a vehicle that had

“wrapping” on it and did not have any license plates fairly suggests that the vehicle was likely

stolen and that the respondent was not authorized to possess it. For each of these reasons, the

                                                 - 21 -
Nos. 1-21-1006, 1-21-1007, 1-21-1008, 1-21-1009,
1-21-1010, 1-21-1011, 1-21-1012, 1-21-1013 (cons.)

court’s finding that the State proved that the respondent was not entitled to possess the Audi in

question is not against the manifest weight of the evidence.

¶ 44   Similarly, we can infer from the respondent’s actions that he knew the vehicle to be stolen.

Section 4-103(a)(1), which proscribes possession of a stolen vehicle, provides that “[k]nowledge

that a vehicle *** is stolen *** may be inferred: (A) from the surrounding facts and circumstances,

which would lead a reasonable person to believe that the vehicle *** is stolen ***; or (B) if the

person exercises exclusive unexplained possession” over the vehicle. 625 ILCS 5/4-103(a)(1).

Additionally, “[e]vidence of flight may be considered to infer the defendant's knowledge that the

vehicle was stolen.” People v. Whitfield, 214 Ill. App. 3d 446, 454 (1991) (citing People v. Tucker

186 Ill. App. 3d 683, 694 (1989)). The court in this case inferred from the respondent’s actions

that he knew that the vehicle was stolen, and that finding is supported by the evidence. Testimony

established that the vehicle did not have any license plates, that the vehicle had protective wrapping

on it, that the respondent reversed the vehicle into Officer Carreno’s vehicle and then abandoned

it, and that the respondent then fled the scene in another car. It would be reasonable to infer from

these facts that the respondent knew the vehicle to be stolen. At the very least these facts do not

make the opposite conclusion apparent. Accordingly, the court’s finding that the State established

that the respondent committed the act of possession of a stolen motor vehicle is not against the

manifest weight of the evidence.

¶ 45   The respondent next argues that the circuit court erred in admitting certain hearsay

testimony over the respondent’s counsel’s objection and that counsel was ineffective for not

objecting to the admission of other pieces of hearsay testimony. However, even if we exclude the

testimony that the respondent alleges was hearsay, specifically Bard’s discussion of what the

                                                - 22 -
Nos. 1-21-1006, 1-21-1007, 1-21-1008, 1-21-1009,
1-21-1010, 1-21-1011, 1-21-1012, 1-21-1013 (cons.)

transport truck driver told him about the damaged Audi and Bard’s testimony regarding the Audi’s

VIN, for the purposes of this EJJ proceeding the non-hearsay testimony from Officer Carreno

about the respondent deliberately crashing and abandoning a vehicle with protective wrapping and

no license plates was sufficient on its own to support the circuit court’s finding that the respondent

committed the offense of PSMV. Accordingly, there was no harm or prejudice from the admission

or failure to object to the admission of the alleged hearsay testimony.

¶ 46   Lastly, the respondent asserts that the circuit court erred when, while imposing his split

juvenile and adult sentences in 2019, it stated that he would serve 85% of his twenty-one-year

adult sentence for aggravated vehicular hijacking in case 18JD925. The respondent asserts that

under the truth-in-sentencing law he should only be required to serve 50% of that sentence because

the court did not make a finding of great bodily harm to the victim. See 730 ILCS 5/3-6-3(a)(2)(iii),

(a)(2.1) (West 2018). However, because we are vacating his sentence in case 18JD925 due to the

lack of an in absentia admonishment, this issue is moot. See In re C.C., 2015 IL App (1st) 142306,

¶ 15 (holding that a respondent does not have standing to challenge a conditional adult sentence in

an EJJ proceeding until the adult sentence has actually been imposed).

¶ 47   Based on the foregoing, we vacate the judgments lifting the stays and imposing the adult

sentences in cases 18JD925, 18JD926, 18JD927, 18JD928, and 18JD929. Proceedings on the

State’s petitions to revoke the stays of the respondent’s adult sentences in those cases cannot

proceed in the respondent’s absence until the respondent has been admonished in each of those

cases that he can be tried in absentia. The judgments lifting the stays and imposing the adult

sentences in cases 18JD1163, 18JD1174, and 18JD1175 are affirmed.

¶ 48   No. 1-21-1006, Vacated and remanded with directions.

                                                - 23 -
Nos. 1-21-1006, 1-21-1007, 1-21-1008, 1-21-1009,
1-21-1010, 1-21-1011, 1-21-1012, 1-21-1013 (cons.)

¶ 49   No. 1-21-1007, Vacated and remanded with directions.

¶ 50   No. 1-21-1008, Vacated and remanded with directions.

¶ 51   No. 1-21-1009, Vacated and remanded with directions.

¶ 52   No. 1-21-1010, Affirmed.

¶ 53   No. 1-21-1011, Vacated and remanded with directions.

¶ 54   No. 1-21-1012, Affirmed.

¶ 55   No. 1-21-1013, Affirmed.

                                           - 24 -
Nos. 1-21-1006, 1-21-1007, 1-21-1008, 1-21-1009,
1-21-1010, 1-21-1011, 1-21-1012, 1-21-1013 (cons.)

  In re D.W., a minor 2023 IL App (1st) 221006, 211007, 211008, 211009, 211010, 211011,
                                 211012, 211013 (cons.)

Decision Under Review:       Appeal from the Circuit Court of Cook County,
                             Nos. 18 JD 925, 18 JD 926, 18 JD 927, 18 JD 928, 18 JD 929,
                             18 JD 1163, 18 JD 1174, 18 JD 1175
                             86 CR 10404, Honorable Terrence V. Sharkey
                             Judge, presiding.

Attorneys for Appellant:    JAMES E. CHADD, State Appellate Defender
                            DOUGLAS R. HOFF, Deputy Defender
                            DEEPA PUNJABI, Assistant Appellate Defender
                            Office of the State Appellate Defender, First Judicial District
                            203 N. LaSalle St., 24th Floor
                            Chicago, IL 60601
                            Phone: (312) 814-5472

Attorneys for Appellee:     KIMBERLY M. FOXX,
                            State’s Attorney, County of Cook,
                            ENRIQUE ABRAHAM,
                            DOUGLAS P. HARVATH,
                            TASHA-MARIE KELLY, Asst State’s Attorneys, Of Counsel
                            Room 309 - Richard J. Daley Center,
                            Chicago, Illinois 60602
                            Phone: (312) 603-5496

                                            - 25 -