Court Opinion

ID: 9740081
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 20:27:36.393393+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:24:16.102026
License: Public Domain

JUSTICE FREEMAN delivered the judgment of the court, with opinion. Justices McMorrow, Fitzgerald, and Kilbride concurred in the judgment and opinion. Justice Karmeier specially concurred, with opinion, joined by Chief Justice Thomas and Justice Garman. OPINION Pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 381(a) (188 Ill. 2d R. 381(a)), the State’s Attorney of Cook County filed a motion with this court for leave to file a complaint seeking a writ of mandamus. We allowed the State to file the complaint. The State seeks an order compelling the Honorable Terrence Sharkey, judge of the circuit court of Cook County (respondent), to set for trial within 120 days a delinquency petition against L.J., a minor. The question before us is whether the State can utilize the speedy-trial provisions of the Juvenile Court Act of 1987 (705 ILCS 405/5 — 601(1) (West 2004)) to force a minor to go to trial within 120 days. BACKGROUND In 2004 the State brought three felony delinquency petitions against L. J. (the minor), in the juvenile division of the circuit court of Cook County. The charges were aggravated unlawful use of a weapon, burglary, and attempted first degree murder. The State elected first to proceed on the charge of attempted murder. However, in February 2005, the circuit court granted the State’s petition for discretionary transfer (see 705 ILCS 405/5— 805(3) (West 2004)) of that charge to the criminal division, where it remains pending.1 The juvenile court delinquency petition was subsequently nol-prossed. In April 2005, the State attempted to elect on the minor’s unlawful use of a weapon charge and force that case to proceed to trial. Respondent, the judge before whom this motion was brought, denied the motion, expressing concern regarding the fairness of requiring the minor to prepare for two cases at once. Respondent noted that the Code of Criminal Procedure provides that the court may “upon the written motion of either party or upon the court’s own motion order a continuance *** if he finds that the interests of justice so require.” 725 ILCS 5/114 — 4(d) (West 2004). Respondent found that a continuance was appropriate and in the interests of justice, and held that the State could not unilaterally invoke the speedy-trial provision of the Juvenile Court Act (705 ILCS 405/5- — 601(1) (West 2004)), forcing the case to trial within 120 days over the objection of the minor. As previously noted, the State instituted this original mandamus action to request that this court enter an order compelling respondent to set the case for trial within 120 days. See 155 Ill. 2d R. 381(a); Ill. Const. 1970, art. VI, § 4(a). Respondent has not filed a brief before this court, but the minor has filed a brief opposing the State’s mandamus request. ANALYSIS This court has discretionary original jurisdiction in mandamus actions. Ill. Const. 1970, art. VI, § 4(a). Mandamus is “ ‘an extraordinary remedy appropriate to enforce as a matter of public right the performance of official duties by a public officer where no exercise of discretion on his part is involved.’ ” People ex rel. Birkett v. Jorgensen, 216 Ill. 2d 358, 362 (2005), quoting Madden v. Cronson, 114 Ill. 2d 504, 514 (1986). Mandamus will lie only when the movant shows “ ‘a clear, affirmative right to relief, a clear duty of the [public officer] to act, and clear authority in the [public officer] to comply with the writ,’ ” not when the act in question concerns an exercise of an official’s discretion. People v. Madej, 193 Ill. 2d 395, 404 (2000), quoting Lewis E. v. Spagnolo, 186 Ill. 2d 198, 229 (1999). Further, “[w]here the writ would compel the performance of a judicial act by a lower court in pending litigation this court must necessarily consider not only whether the petitioner has shown a clear violation by the judge of a duty imposed by law but also whether issuance of the writ will be effective.” People ex rel. Carey v. Scotillo, 84 Ill. 2d 170, 175 (1981). The State argues that section 601 of the Juvenile Court Act clearly and unambiguously gives the State the right to unilaterally demand trial. The minor contends that this construction is erroneous and the State is improperly attempting to compel respondent to rule in the State’s favor in a scheduling matter, traditionally well within a judge’s discretion. Because the instant case involves a matter of statutoiy construction, our review is de novo. See, e.g., People v. Ramirez, 214 Ill. 2d 176, 179 (2005). Our aim is to ascertain and give effect to the true intent of the legislature, the best evidence of which is the language used in the statute itself. Where the plain language of the statute clearly reveals the legislature’s intent, that intent must prevail, and no resort to other interpretive aids is necessary. However, although statutory language ought to be given its plain and ordinary meaning, we construe statutes as a whole, with each provision construed in connection with every other section. People v. A Parcel of Property Commonly Known As 1945 North 31st Street, Decatur, Macon County, Illinois, 217 Ill. 2d 481, 499 (2005), quoting Paris v. Feder, 179 Ill. 2d 173, 177 (1997). The State argues that this case is quite simple. Subsection (1) of section 5 — 601 of the Juvenile Court Act provides that “a trial must be held within 120 days of a written demand for such hearing made by any party” (705 ILCS 405/5 — 601(1) (West 2004)); the State is a party; therefore a trial must be held within 120 days of a written demand by the State. This argument is facially compelling. However, the minor provides a host of reasons for concluding that the answer is not nearly as clear-cut as the State suggests, which we ultimately find persuasive. First, the minor argues that we must consider subsection (1) in context, looking to section 5 — 601 in its entirety, as well as the Juvenile Court Act generally. For instance, the minor points out that subsection (9) of section 5 — 601 provides that “Nothing in this Section prevents the minor or the minor’s parents, guardian or legal custodian from exercising their respective rights to waive the time limits set forth in this Section.” 705 ILCS 405/5 — 601(9) (West 2004). How, the minor asks, can the State’s purported unilateral right to demand trial within 120 days be reconciled with the clear provision that a minor cannot be prevented from exercising his right to waive the time limits? The State responds that the language of subsection (9) actually cuts in favor of the State, because it reveals that in the Juvenile Court Act the legislature specifies the particular parties who have a right when it chooses to do so, suggesting that the legislature truly meant “any party,” including the State, when it used that term in subsection (1). This argument fails to come to grips with the heart of the conflict between subsection (9) and the State’s proffered construction of subsection (1), however. The problem is that subsection (9) gives the minor and his parents, guardians, or legal custodians an absolute and unqualified right to waive the time limits referred to in the article. This is impossible to reconcile with the State having a unilateral right to enforce the time limits. In a similar vein, subsection (8) of section 5 — 601 provides that “[t]he period in which a trial shall be held *** is tolled by: (i) delay occasioned by the minor ***. Any such delay shall temporarily suspend, for the time of the delay, the period within which a trial must be held ***.” 705 ILCS 405/5 — 601(8) (West 2004). Why would the legislature give the State a unilateral right to demand trial within 120 days but allow the minor to toll that clock through his unilateral delay? And if the minor’s delay did not toll the clock, we would run up against subsection (3) of section 5 — 601, which provides the remedy for failure to bring the minor to trial within the specified time limits: “When no such trial is held within the time required by subsections (1) and (2) of this Section, the court shall, upon motion by any party, dismiss the petition with prejudice.” 705 ILCS 405/5 — 601(3) (West 2004). Moreover, subsection (2) of section 5 — 601 sets out the time limits for dealing with the situation when there are multiple delinquency petitions pending and the minor simultaneously demands trial on more than one of the charges — but there is no provision for what to do if the State were to demand trial on multiple charges. 705 ILCS 405/5 — 601(2) (West 2004). It would seem illogical for the legislature to have provided for one eventuality but not the other, if the legislature truly intended to grant the State an equal ability to demand trial. The minor also notes that in numerous other provisions of the Juvenile Court Act the terms “party,” “parties” and “any party” are used without including the State. For instance, section 1 — 5 of the Juvenile Court Act is entitled “Rights of parties to proceedings” but the text of that statute refers primarily to parties opposing the State, i.e., “the minor who is the subject of the proceeding and his parents, guardian, legal custodian or responsible relative who are parties respondent.” Moreover, that same statute also provides that the court “shall appoint the Public Defender” (or such other counsel as may be required) to represent “any party financially unable to employ counsel.” 705 ILCS 405/1— 5(1) (West 2004). To accept the State’s argument in the instant case — that “any party” clearly and unambiguously always includes the State — would seem to compel the unreasonable conclusion that section 1 — 5 would entitle the State to representation by the public defender if it could prove itself indigent. The minor also directs our attention to subsection (3) of section 1 — 5, which requires the circuit court to advise “the parties” of their right to appeal in the event of an adjudication of wardship (705 ILCS 405/1 — 5(3) (West 2004)) — a situation in which only parties opposing the State would be interested in taking an appeal. See also 705 ILCS 405/5 — 530(2) (c) (West 2004) (discussing notice requirements in the context of “multiple parties”). Moreover, as the minor also points out, section 5 — 101 of the Juvenile Court Act provides that in delinquency proceedings minors “shall have all the procedural rights of adults in criminal proceedings, unless specifically precluded by laws that enhance the protection of such minors.” 705 ILCS 405/5 — 101(3) (West 2004). But adults in criminal proceedings are not subject to the State utilizing the speedy-trial act to force them to trial over their protests — only a defendant can start the speedy-trial clock ticking by demanding trial in a criminal case. See 725 ILCS 5/103 — 5 (West 2002). Additionally, as respondent noted in ruling on the motion, criminal defendants have the right to continuances when “the interests of justice so require” (see 725 ILCS 5/114 — 4(d) (West 2004)). This right would seem to be overridden — in contravention of section 5 — 101(3) of the Juvenile Court Act — if the State had the unilateral right to force a delinquency petition to trial in 120 days. Additionally, and finally, the minor observes that this case involves the circuit court’s control over its own docket, a context particularly unsuited to mandamus relief. See Will v. Calvert Fire Insurance Co., 437 U.S. 655, 57 L. Ed. 2d 504, 98 S. Ct. 2552 (1978) (denying request for mandamus when trial court held a case in abeyance pending the outcome of another case and noting different standards for mandamus relief and simple appeals). The State argues that our appellate court has already held that “[a]s with the Code of Criminal Procedure,” the Juvenile Court Act’s 120-day speedy-trial period “begins to run when either party makes a formal demand for trial.” In re A.F., 282 Ill. App. 3d 930, 931-32 (1996). We do not find this statement convincing. First, this was dictum, because in A.F. the court was evaluating the efficacy of a trial demand by the juvenile, not the State. Second, the court was proceeding from a faulty premise because, as previously noted, the Code of Criminal Procedure does not permit the State to start the speedy-trial clock ticking, only a defendant. See 725 ILCS 5/103 — 5 (West 2002). We find this precedent of no assistance in evaluating the issues before us. The State also argues that the legislative history of the statute makes clear that the legislature’s intent in establishing the speedy-trial provision was to eliminate case backlogs, specifically in Cook County. We need not here recount the history on which the State relies, because even assuming arguendo that the State’s reading is correct, it says nothing about whether the State has the ability to force an individual case to trial. If there is a reason for one case not to go to trial, the State can focus its resources on preparing for trial in the numerous cases in which the minors do demand trial. This is not a case about the State’s ability to elect which case to proceed on first when there are multiple delinquency petitions pending against the same juvenile. All we are concerned with here is whether the speedy-trial provisions of the Juvenile Court Act give the State the ability to force a particular juvenile court proceeding to trial within a specific time against the minor’s wishes. More specifically, given that this is a mandamus action, the question is whether the State has shown “ ‘a clear, affirmative right’ ” (Madej, 193 Ill. 2d at 404, quoting Lewis E., 186 Ill. 2d at 229) to force a delinquency petition to trial against a minor’s wishes, because of a “clear violation by the judge of a duty imposed by law” (Scotillo, 84 Ill. 2d at 175) “ ‘where no exercise of discretion on his part is involved’ ” (Jorgensen, 216 Ill. 2d at 362, quoting Madden, 114 Ill. 2d at 514). The answer must be in the negative, given the wealth of reasons outlined above for concluding that the “any party” language in section 5 — 601(1) is not intended to include the State. To adopt the State’s construction would conflict with other subsections of section 5 — 601 as well as other portions of the Juvenile Court Act. Indeed, the facial conflict with subsection (9) of section 5 — 601 (“Nothing in this Section prevents the minor or the minor’s parents, guardian or legal custodian from exercising their respective rights to waive the time limits set forth in this Section” (705 ILCS 405/5 — 601(9) (West 2004))) might well alone suffice to derail the State’s mamdamus petition. We are not required to turn a blind eye to a statute or a statutory scheme and construe a single subsection in isolation. When section 5 — 601(1) is viewed in context, it is clear that the term “any party” was not intended to include the State. CONCLUSION For the reasons above stated, we conclude that the State’s request for a writ of mandamus must be denied. This case involves a circuit court’s control over its own docket, a matter traditionally considered to be well within its discretionary control, and the State has not shown clear entitlement to the relief it requests. Writ denied.  The State’s petition for discretionary transfer and the circuit court’s ruling thereon are not contained in the record before us; it appears that this proceeding took place before a different judge. The facts concerning the transfer of the attempted murder charge are taken from on-the-record statements by the attorneys and the court during the hearing on the State’s speedy-trial motion. However, there does not appear to be any dispute as to the sequence of events.