In Re Rodney S.

402 Ill.App.3d 272

932 N.E.2d 588

342 Ill.Dec. 461

In re RODNEY S., a Minor,The People of the State of Illinois, Petitioner-Appellee,

v.Rodney S., Respondent-Appellant.

No. 4-09-0118.

Appellate Court of Illinois,Fourth District.

June 30, 2010.

Rehearing Denied July 26, 2010.

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED.

Michael J. Pelletier, Gary R. Peterson, and Jacqueline L. Bullard (argued), all of State Appellate Defender's Office, of Springfield, for appellant.

Michael McIntosh, State's Attorney, of Lincoln (Patrick Delfino, Robert J. Biderman, and Luke McNeill (argued), all of State's Attorneys Appellate Prosecutor's Office, of counsel), for the People.

Justice STEIGMANN delivered the opinion of the court:

On September 10, 2008, the State filed a petition for adjudication of wardship as to respondent, Rodney S. (born April 23, 1998), asserting that he was a delinquent minor pursuant to section 5-105(3) of the Juvenile Court Act of 1987 (Juvenile Court Act) (705 ILCS 405/5-105(3) (West 2008)). Specifically, the State alleged that on his way home from school, 10-year-old Rodney committed two counts of aggravated battery (720 ILCS 5/12-4(b)(8), (b)(18) (West 2008)) against his bus monitor.

Following an October 2008 bench trial, the trial court (1) found Rodney guilty of both counts of aggravated battery and (2) adjudicated Rodney a delinquent minor. In January 2009, the court placed Rodney in the custody of the Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS) and sentenced him to probation “until [he] attains 21 years of age.”

Rodney appeals, arguing that (1) he was denied his right to counsel because his court-appointed lawyer acted as both his trial attorney and guardian ad litem; (2) this court should order the trial court to amend its order of adjudication to reflect one count of aggravated battery pursuant to the one-act, one-crime rule; and (3) his sentence is (a) void and (b) excessive. Because we agree that (1) under the one- act, one-crime rule, one of the trial court's delinquency findings entered against Rodney should be vacated and (2) Rodney's sentence is void, we affirm in part, vacate in part, and remand with directions.

I. BACKGROUND

A. The State's Petition for Adjudication of Wardship

On September 10, 2008, the State filed a petition for adjudication of wardship as to Rodney, asserting that he was a delinquent minor pursuant to section 5-105(3) of the Juvenile Court Act (705 ILCS 405/5-105(3) (West 2008)). The State alleged that prior to his seventeenth birthday, Rodney committed two counts of aggravated battery (720 ILCS 5/12-4(b)(8), (b)(18) (West 2008)) by making contact of an insulting and provoking nature with his bus monitor, Scott Lindley. The charges were based, respectively, on the State's allegation that Rodney committed battery (1) on public property-namely, a school van on a public roadway (720 ILCS 5/12-4(b)(8) (West 2008))-and (2) upon a school employee in the performance of his duties (720 ILCS 5/12-4(b)(18) (West 2008)). Following a September 25, 2008, hearing on the State's petition, the trial court appointed an attorney to represent Rodney.

B. Rodney's October 2008 Bench Trial

Lindley testified that as an employee of the Mount Pulaski school district, he was charged with escorting students to and from school. (The school district apparently employed Lindley to ride in a van-which was driven by another school district employee-to assist students who needed additional help or supervision to get to and from school.) Lindley said that Rodney acted appropriately on the way to school but that problems arose on the ride home. Specifically, Lindley gave the following account of the incident that led to the petition for adjudication of wardship in this case.

“[LINDLEY:] * * * [T]he driver * * * went out and got the note * * *. [ (Apparently, the school had sent a note home with Rodney for his mother, and Rodney had thrown that note out of the van while it was in line to leave the school.) ] * * *

[THE STATE:] * * * While this was going on, while his note was outside, was Rodney pleading to get his note?

[LINDLEY:] He was-I wouldn't say pleading. I would say more like ordering, ordering myself or the driver to get his note, and, yes, he would use some off-colored language in order to try to pursue that.

[THE STATE:] Did he attempt to go get the note?

[LINDLEY:] Yes, he did. At one point he tried to climb over the seat * * *. When that didn't work, at some point he even laid down in the seat and kicked the ceiling * * *.

[THE STATE:] Subsequently[,] did he, after the incident with the note, state that he was going to hit you?

[LINDLEY:] Yes, he had told me he was going to hit me. He told me he was going to bite me. He told me that he hated me. * * *

[THE STATE:] Okay, and what did he subsequently do after he made those threats?

[LINDLEY:] I mean he did hit me, yes. He hit me on [a] countless number of occasions in the arm. I mean, once we got him in his seat belt and got him to latch his seat belt, I held the seat belt because, first of all, we couldn't move [the van] unless we had our seat belt on, and the driver clearly told him * * * to put his seat belt on, which he didn't want to do. But once he got the seat belt on, I held my hand over the seat belt. That's when I received quite a few * * * blows to my upper and lower arm.

[THE STATE:] Okay, and soon thereafter[,] did you pick up the other children?

[LINDLEY:] Yeah, we did.

[THE STATE:] And what happened after the other children were picked up as far as Rodney's behavior?

[LINDLEY:] It continued. It continued to disintegrate further from there. * * *

* * *

* * * [A]t one point Rodney * * * [got] down on the floorboard, and he was looking for something to hit me with as he indicated * * *. * * * Rodney managed to find some stuff down on the floor. * * * He wiped [crushed crackers] on me. He found a couple of double A batteries and he threw those at me. * * * He pulled [an armrest] liner out and threw it at me. * * *

[THE STATE:] And when you say that he threw these things at you, did he actually hit you with them?

[LINDLEY:] Yes, he actually hit me with them.

[THE STATE:] So he hit you with the liner and hit you with the batteries?

[LINDLEY:] Yes, and he hit me with his shoe, and he also wiped his sock on my face after he pulled his sock off.

[THE STATE:] And I'll give you a quote from the police report. You can tell me if this is accurate. After he took the sock and rubbed it in your face, did he state to you, ‘Give me my fucking shoe back[,] you bastard. I don't give a damn what you said.’?

[LINDLEY:] Yes.

* * *

[THE STATE:] And am I correct, he had struck you with one shoe[,] and you took it away, and did he subsequently take his other shoe and strike you?

[LINDLEY:] We're moving down the road. We're still in Bloomington, * * * and he takes his shoe and his sock off, hits me with it, then throws it up to the front of the van between the two students so that I couldn't get his shoe. So, yes.

* * *

[THE STATE:] [Y]ou said this conduct continued all the way back to Mount Pulaski. Is that correct?

[LINDLEY:] That's correct.

[THE STATE:] And did Rodney at some point strike you in the face?

[LINDLEY:] Yes, he did.

[THE STATE:] Okay, and when did that occur?

[LINDLEY:] You know, that occurred * * * around Heyworth or * * * Atlanta * * *. If I would be * * * looking straight forward in front of me he would hit me in the face. * * * [T]he hits became worse when we were in Lincoln. I mean, subsequently worse. I mean where they were direct punches to my face. At that point, when we were in Lincoln * * *.

* * *

[THE STATE:] I just want to clarify, * * * when you were in Lincoln, that's when he punched you in the face and he asked you if you liked that, or if that hurt, or something to that effect?

[LINDLEY:] Yes * * *.”

Rodney and his mother, Debra S., testified in Rodney's defense. Rodney's testimony in large part corroborated Lindley's account of the incident in the van. Debra testified that she (1) did not know exactly what happened in the van and (2) had been unsuccessful in her attempts to discipline Rodney.

C. The Trial Court's Findings and Rodney's Sentence

Immediately following Rodney's trial, the trial court (1) found him guilty of both counts of aggravated battery and (2) adjudicated him a delinquent minor. Following a January 2009 sentencing hearing, the court placed Rodney in the custody of DCFS and sentenced him to probation “until [he] attains 21 years of age.”

This appeal followed.

II. ANALYSIS

Rodney argues that (1) he was denied his right to counsel because his court-appointed lawyer acted as both his trial attorney and guardian ad litem; (2) this court should order the trial court to amend its order of adjudication to reflect one count of aggravated battery pursuant to the one-act, one-crime rule; and (3) his sentence is (a) void and (b) excessive. We address Rodney's contentions in turn.

A. Rodney's Claim That He Was Denied His Right to Counsel

Rodney first contends that he was denied his right to counsel because his court-appointed lawyer acted as both his trial attorney and guardian ad litem. Specifically, Rodney asserts that (1) the due-process clauses of the Illinois and United States Constitutions and (2) the Juvenile Court Act require that the trial court appoint an attorney to defend juveniles and a separate individual to act as guardian ad litem. Rodney posits, citing several secondary sources, that such dual representation amounts to a per se conflict and, under the facts of this case, an actual conflict. We disagree.

1. Section 1-5(1) of the Juvenile Court Act

Section 1-5(1) of the Juvenile Court Act provides, in pertinent part, as follows:

“[T]he minor who is the subject of the proceeding and his parents * * * have the right to be present, to be heard, to present evidence material to the proceedings, to cross-examine witnesses, to examine pertinent court files and records and also, although proceedings...