In Re Pulido

Illinois Supreme Court

In Re Pulido

372 N.E.2d 822, 69 Ill. 2d 393, 14 Ill. Dec. 543, 1978 Ill. LEXIS 210

CourtIllinois Supreme Court

DecidedJanuary 13, 1978

Docket50298

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 372 N.E.2d 822 (In Re Pulido) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Illinois Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

In Re Pulido, 372 N.E.2d 822, 69 Ill. 2d 393, 14 Ill. Dec. 543, 1978 Ill. LEXIS 210 (Ill. 1978).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

After a finding of juvenile delinquency and commitment to a correctional facility, the defendant moved for bond pending appeal. Both the trial court and appellate court denied the motion on the ground of lack of jurisdiction. Supreme Court Rule 660(a) (65 Ill. 2d R. 660(a)) provides that appeals from final judgments in delinquent minor proceedings shall be governed by the rules applicable to criminal cases, except as otherwise provided. Rule 609(b) (58 Ill. 2d R. 609(b)) provides for bail pending appeal where a defendant is sentenced to imprisonment. There is no statutory provision or rule providing that Rule 609 does not apply in juvenile delinquency cases, and the trial court and appellate court were in error in holding that they lacked jurisdiction to fix bond. Since applications for bond pending appeal should be addressed in the first instance to the trial court, we express no opinion as to whether bond should be allowed. It is ordered, in the exercise of this court’s supervisory jurisdiction, that the circuit court of Cook County, juvenile division, consider defendant’s application for bond pending appeal.

It is unnecessary to consider the motion by petitioner for bond pending appeal, or, in the alternative, to remand this cause to the trial court with instructions.

The motion by petitioner for leave to present oral argument on motion for bond pending appeal is denied.

Supervisory order entered.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM:

After a finding of juvenile delinquency and commitment to a correctional facility, the defendant moved for bond pending appeal. Both the trial court and appellate court denied the motion on the ground of lack of jurisdiction. Supreme Court Rule 660(a) (65 Ill. 2d R. 660(a)) provides that appeals from final judgments in delinquent minor proceedings shall be governed by the rules applicable to criminal cases, except as otherwise provided. Rule 609(b) (58 Ill. 2d R. 609(b)) provides for bail pending appeal where a defendant is sentenced to imprisonment. There is no statutory provision or rule providing that Rule 609 does not apply in juvenile delinquency cases, and the trial court and appellate court were in error in holding that they lacked jurisdiction to fix bond. Since applications for bond pending appeal should be addressed in the first instance to the trial court, we express no opinion as to whether bond should be allowed. It is ordered, in the exercise of this court’s supervisory jurisdiction, that the circuit court of Cook County, juvenile division, consider defendant’s application for bond pending appeal.

It is unnecessary to consider the motion by petitioner for bond pending appeal, or, in the alternative, to remand this cause to the trial court with instructions.

The motion by petitioner for leave to present oral argument on motion for bond pending appeal is denied.

Supervisory order entered.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

372 N.E.2d 822, 69 Ill. 2d 393, 14 Ill. Dec. 543, 1978 Ill. LEXIS 210, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-pulido-ill-1978.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack