NOTICE 2022 IL App (5th) 220011-U NOTICE Decision filed 05/27/22. The This order was filed under text of this decision may be NOS. 5-22-0011, 5-22-0012 cons. Supreme Court Rule 23 and is changed or corrected prior to not precedent except in the the filing of a Peti ion for Rehearing or the disposition of IN THE limited circumstances allowed under Rule 23(e)(1). the same. APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS
FIFTH DISTRICT ________________________________________________________________________
In re M.M., a Minor ) Appeal from the ) Circuit Court of (The People of the State of Illinois, ) Coles County. ) Petitioner-Appellee, ) ) Nos. 20-JD-80, 20-JD-88 v. ) ) M.M., a Minor, ) Honorable ) Jonathan T. Braden, Respondent-Appellant). ) Judge, presiding. ________________________________________________________________________
JUSTICE WELCH delivered the judgment of the court. Justices Cates and Moore concurred in the judgment.
ORDER
¶1 Held: The trial court’s finding that the State proved by a preponderance of the evidence that the delinquent minor violated the conditions of her probation was not against the manifest weight of the evidence, and the court did not abuse its discretion in sentencing her to an indeterminate period in the Illinois Department of Juvenile Justice. Thus, the court’s decision is affirmed.
¶2 On October 15, 2020, the respondent, M.M., was charged in a delinquency petition
with domestic battery and aggravated battery in case No. 20-JD-80. On November 5, 2020,
she was also charged in another delinquency petition with domestic battery, aggravated
1 battery, and resisting or obstructing a police officer in case No. 20-JD-88. 1 Thereafter,
M.M. admitted the allegations to all counts in both cases. Based on this admission, the
circuit court of Coles County imposed a two-year term of probation. The State
subsequently filed a petition to revoke and a supplemental petition to revoke probation in
both cases. The trial court found that M.M. violated her probation and sentenced her to an
indeterminate term in the Illinois Department of Juvenile Justice (Department). M.M.
appeals, contending that (1) the trial court erred in characterizing her letter written after
sentencing as a pro se notice of appeal instead of a pro se motion to reconsider her
sentence, (2) the court’s finding that the State proved by a preponderance of the evidence
that she violated the conditions of her probation was against the manifest weight of the
evidence, and (3) the court abused its discretion in sentencing her to an indeterminate
period in the Department. For the reasons that follow, we affirm.
¶3 I. BACKGROUND
¶4 On October 15, 2020, the State filed a petition alleging that M.M., born April 23,
2004, was delinquent because on August 27, 2020, she committed the offenses of domestic
battery and aggravated battery in that she made physical contact with a family member (her
grandmother and guardian), who was 60 years old or older. On November 5, 2020, the
State filed a second petition alleging that M.M. was delinquent because on November 4,
2020, she committed the offenses of domestic battery, aggravated battery, and resisting or
1 Initially, case No. 20-JD-80 was docketed in this court as 5-22-0011, and case No. 20-JD-88 was docketed as 5-22-0012. However, on March 8, 2022, this court entered an order consolidating the appeals under 5-22-0011. 2 obstructing a police officer in that she pushed and hit her younger sister; she kicked her
grandmother in the waistline; and, when she was being arrested, she pulled her arms away,
thrashed her upper body, and tried to thwart the officer’s attempts to get her inside the
police car.
¶5 On January 29, 2021, M.M. admitted the allegations in both petitions. Based on
those admissions, the trial court sentenced her to a two-year term of probation under the
following conditions, in pertinent parts, outlined in the Juvenile Certificate of Conditions.
For example, paragraph 5 required M.M. to reside with her parents, guardian, or legal
custodian. Also, paragraph 7 required M.M. to keep her probation officer advised of her
place of residence at all times, advise the probation officer prior to any change of residence,
and be at her residence between the hours of 9 p.m. and 6 a.m. Sunday night through
Saturday night unless modified by probation.
¶6 On August 12, 2021, the State filed a petition to revoke and a supplemental petition
to revoke M.M.’s probation. Attached to the petitions was an affidavit from Ashley
Johnson, M.M.’s probation officer, in which she stated that she received a telephone call
from M.M.’s grandmother on August 2, 2021. In the telephone call, M.M.’s grandmother
advised that M.M. had been missing since July 30, 2021, and a missing person report was
filed with the local police department. Johnson also indicated that M.M. had been in
violation of her curfew on several occasions in the last month. Also attached was a
supplemental probation violation report, which indicated that M.M. violated her probation
by failing to be at her residence by 9 p.m. on several days identified in the report.
3 ¶7 At the October 22, 2021, hearing, Johnson testified that M.M. admitted that, on
occasion, she was not home by her 9 p.m. curfew, and there were some nights when she
never went home. Johnson also testified that she conducted home visits, and there were
times when M.M. was not at home when she was required to be there. However, Johnson
could not remember the specific dates of the home visits. Johnson explored every option
with M.M. to get her to comply with probation; Johnson had numerous one-on-one
meetings with her, tried to convince her to keep taking her medication for her mental health,
worked with her grandmother, and attempted to get her into counseling. Johnson explained
that M.M. stayed on track and was a functioning member of society when on her
medication. M.M. also served detention time for noncompliance with probation with the
hope that the detention would turn her around. After exhausting every option, Johnson
filed the probation violation reports. No other evidence was presented by the State or M.M.
¶8 After hearing the testimony and arguments from counsel, the trial court found that
the State had proven by a preponderance of the evidence that M.M. failed to observe her
curfew. In making this decision, the court noted that there was testimony presented,
although it was general testimony, that Johnson was present in M.M.’s home at times when
M.M. was required to be there and was not. The court also noted that M.M. admitted to
Johnson that she failed to observe her curfew. The court found this evidence was
unrebutted. The court indicated that the allegation in the petition to revoke regarding the
curfew violations included specific dates, but it was not convinced that only those specific
dates must be proven to establish a probation violation. Since M.M. admitted to failing to
observe her curfew, and Johnson had firsthand knowledge of M.M. violating her curfew, 4 the court found that the State had met its burden on this claim. However, the court found
that the State had not met its burden on the second claim, i.e., that M.M. failed to reside
with her guardian. The court then granted the State’s petition to revoke on the first claim.
¶9 On November 8, 2021, Johnson filed the social history investigation report that she
prepared, which stated that M.M. had 9 police contacts in 2019, 71 in 2020, and 25 in 2021;
M.M. was diagnosed with bipolar disorder and was prescribed medications; and she was
not currently taking her medications because she felt like they were not doing anything for
her. M.M. was primarily raised by her maternal grandmother and had resided with her
grandmother since she was three years old. She had no relationship with her biological
father, and she characterized her relationship with her mother as decent. She had four half-
siblings, who also resided with her grandmother, and she did not have a good relationship
with her oldest sister. The report indicated that the constant disrespect for the rules of the
home, the ongoing chaos and disruption, and the threats of physical violence had taken an
emotional toll on M.M.’s grandmother and oldest sister and impacted their health. M.M.
had been suspended from school on several occasions and was currently refusing to attend
her high school because she wanted to attend a different school.
¶ 10 Johnson indicated that she first started supervising M.M. when M.M. was 16 years
old. Johnson noted that M.M. struggled over the past year with following the conditions
of probation; she had ongoing issues with school attendance and following the rules at
school; and she refused to comply with her court-ordered curfew, sometimes coming home
well past her curfew or not coming home at all. Johnson acknowledged that M.M. suffered
from mental health issues and was prescribed medication, but she made a choice not to take 5 it as directed. When M.M. was taking her medication as directed, she was stabilized; she
functioned well in the community, at school, and at home; and she made better life choices.
However, once she stopped taking her medication, her life fell apart. Johnson indicated
that M.M. lacked impulse control and skills in problem solving, decision making, and
communication. She also placed herself in situations with older peers, who negatively
impacted her behavior. However, she tested negative on her recent drug and alcohol
screens.
¶ 11 At the December 8, 2021, sentencing hearing, Stacey Hackett, a special education
teacher and head of the emotional disability transition program (ED program) at Charleston
High School, testified that M.M. had been in the ED program since 2019. Hackett was her
case manager; as a case manager, Hackett figured out M.M.’s schedule, talked with her
about her behavioral issues, and determined consequences for behavioral issues. During
the COVID-19 pandemic, the school was doing remote learning. However, because M.M.
struggled with remote learning and was not taking it seriously, the decision was made to
bring her back into school for in-person learning. After bringing her back, she was initially
doing great and taking her medication, but her good behavior only lasted for approximately
one month.
¶ 12 On October 8, 2021, Hackett sent a letter to M.M.’s probation officer about M.M.’s
behavior. Hackett noted that M.M. indicated that she quit taking her medication, she was
verbally combative, she did not want to follow the rules or be at school, and there were
numerous issues with her wearing inappropriate clothing to school. Hackett also noted
that, when M.M. was on her medication, her behavior was drastically improved; she was 6 easier to get along with, her demeanor was better, her books were ready for class, and her
schoolwork was completed. When she was not taking her medication, she was more
argumentative, she did not want to be at school and wanted to be at home, and she was
tired. M.M. was suspended twice during the 2021-22 school year for refusing to give up
her cell phone while in the alternative education room. Hackett explained that students
were placed in the alternative education room as a consequence, and phones were not
allowed in there. After her second suspension on October 4, she never returned to school
and was not doing remote learning. Although M.M. was a senior, she was not set to
graduate in May. She would need approximately 1½ to 2 years more to graduate.
¶ 13 Johnson testified that M.M. had been on probation since January 29, 2021. During
that time, M.M. failed to comply with curfew, would not come home at night, and had
issues with school attendance. M.M. had no issues with drugs and alcohol until recently.
In October 2021, she admitted to drinking alcohol and some cocaine use. She was regularly
attending her mental health counseling because her grandmother would take her. Johnson
explained that M.M. would go into detention and get back on her medication, and, once
she was released, she would do well until she quit taking her medication again. Johnson
also explained that electronic home confinement, nonelectronic home confinement,
curfew, and detention had all been utilized to attempt to improve M.M.’s behaviors;
everything except for being sentenced to a term in the Department had been attempted.
Johnson indicated that probation had given M.M. every opportunity to change and make
better choices.
7 ¶ 14 Malia M., M.M.’s grandmother, testified that she had been M.M.’s guardian since
M.M. was three years old. Malia M. indicated that, if M.M. was released from custody,
M.M. would be welcome in her home because M.M. was her granddaughter, and she had
no other choice. However, she indicated that M.M. would not be welcome at her house
after M.M. turned 18 unless M.M. was able to obey the rules. She explained that she did
everything she could for M.M., it had been a “living hell” with M.M., and she just wanted
some peace. She further explained that M.M. was no longer allowed to control her home
and do whatever M.M. wanted while living there.
¶ 15 M.M. then read her written statement, in which she expressed remorse for not
following the rules at home and school and for not taking her medication. She indicated
that, in the future, she would think before acting and try to consistently take her medication,
which would help her follow the rules and control her anger.
¶ 16 After the testimony and M.M.’s statement, the State asked for an indeterminate
sentence in the Department. In support, the State argued that M.M. had been given every
opportunity by the trial court to correct her behavior; she was on electronic home
confinement for weeks at a time and, although it kept her at home, it did not curb her
disrespectful behavior; she pled guilty to violent crimes against her closest family
members; and M.M.’s behavior negatively impacted both her grandmother and her sister.
The State also argued that, while in court, M.M. promised to follow the rules, but she never
followed through on those promises. She quit taking her medication, fought with people
at school, stopped attending school, came home at all hours of the night, had numerous
police contacts in two years, and had a 33-year-old boyfriend who gave her alcohol and 8 cocaine. The State argued that the only remaining option was to send her to the
Department.
¶ 17 In response, M.M.’s counsel asked for M.M. to be sentenced to probation. He noted
that, throughout M.M.’s probation, she had not been charged with any new offenses, and
the petition to revoke was for a violation of curfew. He argued that, although she had
several police contacts, a police contact was just where the police showed up to help. He
acknowledged that she struggled in school but noted that was not uncommon for children
in the program. He argued that probation would put her back on the right path and that
electronic home confinement had previously worked with her.
¶ 18 After hearing the arguments, the trial court noted that M.M.’s case had been ongoing
for almost two years, there had been many conversations with her about changing her
behavior, and the trajectory of her behavior and compliance had been going steadily
downhill with some ebbs and flows. The court also noted that M.M. consistently admitted
to her poor behavior when in court; at the outset of the case, she expressed genuine remorse
for her behavior and a commitment to change; and, at that time, the court had faith that she
was going to improve as promised, so she was given numerous opportunities to make those
changes.
¶ 19 As the case progressed, the trial court observed changes in her behavior and in her
interactions, and, although she still expressed remorse for her behavior, the court no longer
believed her remorse was genuine. The court felt that she was being manipulative to get a
favorable outcome. When the manipulations no longer worked, the court observed a
change in her behavior; she became indifferent and defiant. The court noted that the last 9 time M.M. was taken into custody, she shrugged her shoulders as if she did not care. The
court found it troubling that the case had progressed in this manner and noted that the
defiance extended to every part of M.M.’s life. The court also noted that she was
disrespectful to her teachers, made no effort to follow the rules while at school, and stopped
attending school. She was engaging in high-risk behavior, was self-destructive, and was
putting herself in a position to be harmed.
¶ 20 The trial court expressed that it was sensitive to the fact that M.M. suffered from
mental health issues and believed that it impacted her ability to follow the rules, but she
refused to consistently take her medication. The court indicated that it did not have faith
that M.M. would comply with the terms of probation and sentencing her to the Department
was disappointing, but it did not know what else to do because there were no other viable
alternatives. The court then sentenced her to an indeterminate term in the Department.
¶ 21 Thereafter, the trial court entered a written order of commitment to the Department,
finding that commitment was necessary to ensure the protection of the public from the
consequences of M.M.’s criminal activity and reasonable efforts had been made to prevent
or eliminate the need for M.M. being removed from the home. On January 7, 2022, M.M.
wrote a pro se letter that was filed with the court, in which she indicated that she wanted
to appeal her case so she could prove that she could follow the rules, be with her family at
home, obtain employment and a general educational development degree, and stay out of
trouble. The letter was characterized as a pro se notice of appeal.
10 ¶ 22 II. ANALYSIS
¶ 23 Initially, M.M. contends that her pro se letter filed with the circuit court should have
been characterized as a motion to reconsider her sentence rather than a notice of appeal.
However, M.M. has not cited to any authority to support her argument that the trial court
erred in treating her pro se letter as a notice of appeal. Illinois Supreme Court Rule
341(h)(7) requires an appellant to include in the appellate brief an argument, which
contains the appellant’s contentions on appeal and also the reasons for those arguments,
with citation of the authorities and the pages of the record relied on. Ill. S. Ct. R. 341(h)(7)
(eff. Oct. 1, 2020). It is well settled that a contention that is supported by some argument
but does not cite any authority does not satisfy the requirements of Rule 341(h)(7), and
bare contentions that fail to cite any authority do not merit consideration on appeal. People
v. Clinton, 397 Ill. App. 3d 215, 224 (2009). Because M.M. has not cited any authority for
this argument, we will not consider it on appeal.
¶ 24 M.M. next contends that the trial court’s finding that the State proved by a
preponderance of the evidence that she violated a condition of her probation was against
the manifest weight of the evidence. Specifically, M.M. noted that the allegation in the
State’s petition to revoke probation provided specific dates that she allegedly violated her
curfew, but Johnson testified at the hearing that she could not recall the specific dates.
¶ 25 In a juvenile delinquency matter, the State must prove a violation of probation by a
preponderance of the evidence. In re Seth S., 396 Ill. App. 3d 260, 272 (2009). On review,
this court will not disturb a trial court’s ruling on a petition to revoke probation unless the
ruling was against the manifest weight of the evidence. Id. A judgment is against the 11 manifest weight of the evidence when the opposite conclusion is apparent or when findings
appear to be unreasonable, arbitrary, or not based on the evidence. People v. Jackson, 2012
IL App (1st) 103300, ¶ 13.
¶ 26 Here, in finding that the State proved by a preponderance of the evidence that M.M.
violated her curfew, the trial court noted that there was unrebutted general testimony
presented that Johnson was present in M.M.’s home at times when M.M. was required to
be there but was not and that M.M. admitted to Johnson that she failed to observe her
curfew. Although the allegations in the petition to revoke included specific dates, the court
found that it was not convinced that only those specific dates must be proven to establish
a probation violation. M.M. has cited no authority that indicates the court’s finding was
erroneous. Since M.M. admitted to failing to observe her curfew, and Johnson had
firsthand knowledge of M.M. violating this condition of her probation, we find that the
court’s determination was not against the manifest weight of the evidence.
¶ 27 M.M.’s last argument on appeal is that the trial court abused its discretion in
sentencing her to an indeterminate period in the Department. In particular, she contends
that the court’s finding that her confinement in the Department was necessary to ensure the
protection of the public from the consequences of her criminal activity was against the
manifest weight of the evidence.
¶ 28 The disposition of a delinquent minor rests within the sound discretion of the trial
court. In re T.M., 210 Ill. App. 3d 651, 657 (1991). Thus, we will not overturn a trial
court’s determination absent an abuse of that discretion. In re Ashley C., 2014 IL App (4th)
131014, ¶ 22. 12 ¶ 29 Section 5-710 of the Juvenile Court Act of 1987 provides the various dispositional
alternatives available to a trial court as to a delinquent minor (705 ILCS 405/5-710 (West
2020)), including commitment to the Department (id. § 5-750). However, a court may
commit a delinquent minor to the Department only if it finds the following:
“(a) [the minor’s] parents, guardian or legal custodian are unfit or are unable, for some reason other than financial circumstances alone, to care for, protect, train or discipline the minor, or are unwilling to do so, and the best interests of the minor and the public will not be served by placement [outside the home], or it is necessary to ensure the protection of the public from the consequences of criminal activity of the delinquent; and (b) commitment to the Department *** is the least restrictive alternative based on evidence that efforts were made to locate less restrictive alternatives to secure confinement and the reasons why efforts were unsuccessful in locating a less restrictive alternative to secure confinement.” Id. § 5-750(1).
¶ 30 In making a finding that secure confinement is necessary, the trial court must
evaluate the following individualized factors: (1) the minor’s age; (2) the minor’s criminal
background; (3) results of any assessments of the minor; (4) the minor’s educational
background, whether the minor was assessed for a learning disability, any services
provided to the minor, and any disciplinary incidents at school; (5) the physical, mental,
and emotional health of the minor; (6) whether any community based services were
provided to the minor, and whether the minor was compliant with those services; and
(7) the services within the Department that would meet the minor’s individualized needs.
Id.
¶ 31 Here, the evidence presented at the sentencing hearing indicated that M.M. had
times of compliance with probation, but she was not consistent. When she was placed in
detention, she consistently took her medication, and her behavior improved. However,
once she was released, she would quit taking the medication, and she would become 13 verbally combative and noncompliant with the rules at home and school. Johnson testified
that every opportunity, other than confinement to the Department, had been taken to
mitigate M.M.’s behavior without success. She had numerous police contacts since 2019,
had been physically violent with her family members, had two suspensions from school,
was no longer attending school, and recently admitted to drinking alcohol and some
cocaine use. M.M.’s behavior also negatively impacted her grandmother and sister’s
mental and physical health.
¶ 32 In finding that confinement was necessary, the trial court indicated that M.M. was
given numerous opportunities to make behavioral changes during the almost two years that
the case was ongoing and, although she expressed remorse for her behavior, it did not
believe that she was genuine and was instead just trying to receive a favorable outcome.
Once she realized that her continued manipulations would no longer be successful, she
became indifferent and defiant, and the defiance extended to every part of her life. The
court noted that she was disrespectful to her teachers, made no effort to follow the rules,
and was engaging in self-destructive behavior. Although the court acknowledged that she
suffered from mental health issues, which impacted her ability to follow the rules, she
refused to take her medication. The court indicated that it did not have any faith in M.M.
complying with the terms of probation, and there were no other viable alternatives for
sentencing. Thus, the record supports the court’s finding that confinement was necessary
to ensure the protection of the public from the consequences of M.M.’s criminal activity
and demonstrates the reasons why there were no remaining sentencing alternatives for
M.M. Accordingly, we do not find that the court abused its discretion in sentencing M.M. 14 to an indeterminate term in the Department. We must, therefore, affirm the trial court’s
judgment.
¶ 33 III. CONCLUSION
¶ 34 For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the circuit court of Coles County is
hereby affirmed.
¶ 35 Affirmed.