In re M.I.
Annotate this CaseChicago police responded to a street fight. One yelled “police, stop, stop,” but M.I., then 16, fired multiple gunshots in their direction. A petition to have M.I. adjudicated delinquent was filed, and the state successfully moved to designate the proceedings as an “extended jurisdiction juvenile prosecution.” M.I. waived his right to a jury trial. After adjudicating him delinquent the circuit court sentenced him for aggravated discharge of a firearm, to an indeterminate period in the juvenile division of the Department of Corrections, to end no later than his twenty-first birthday. The court also imposed a 23-year adult sentence, stayed pending successful completion of the juvenile sentence. The appellate and supreme courts affirmed. M.I. argued that the hearing on designation as an extended jurisdiction juvenile proceeding was not held within the statutory time period, but the supreme court held that the statute is directory rather than mandatory. M.I. raised a constitutional vagueness challenge to the statutory provision that a stay of an adult sentence may be revoked for violation of the “conditions” of a sentence. Such a stay was part of the original sentence, and the state is seeking revocation based on a subsequent drug offense, but this was not the provision under which revocation was sought, so M.I. lacked standing for the challenge. M.I. also claimed that there was a due process violation in imposing a 23-year adult sentence, citing Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000). The court found no Apprendi violation, noting that the extended jurisdiction juvenile statute is dispositional rather than adjudicatory.
Court Description:
In 2009, Chicago police responded to a large street fight. Although the officers were in plain clothes, they wore badges. One of them yelled “police, stop, stop,” but this juvenile respondent, then 16, fired multiple gunshots in their direction.
A petition to have M.I. adjudicated delinquent was filed, and the State also made a motion to designate the proceedings, pursuant to the Juvenile Court Act of 1987, as an “extended jurisdiction juvenile prosecution.” This motion was granted, and M.I. waived his right to a jury trial. After adjudicating him delinquent in bench proceedings, the Cook County circuit court sentenced him on two counts of aggravated discharge of a firearm. This sentence was to be for an indeterminate period in the juvenile division of the Illinois Department of Corrections, to end no later than his twenty-first birthday. The court also imposed a 23-year adult sentence, which was stayed pending successful completion of the juvenile sentence. The appellate court affirmed.
In this appeal to the Illinois Supreme Court, M.I. complained that the hearing on the designation of his case as an extended jurisdiction juvenile proceeding was not held within the time period called for by statute. Although there had been a number of continuances, the supreme court said in this decision that the statute is directory rather than mandatory and that the sentence which was imposed is not rendered void because the proceedings took longer than anticipated.
M.I. raised a constitutional vagueness challenge to the provision of the statute on extended jurisdiction juvenile proceedings that provides for revocation of a stay of an adult sentence. Such a stay was part of the original sentence, and the State has filed a petition for revocation based on a subsequent drug offense, which is not presently before the supreme court. A stay may be statutorily revoked for violation of the “conditions” of a sentence, and M.I. complained that the term “conditions” was vague, but this was not the provision under which revocation was sought in this case and, thus, he lacked standing for the challenge which he made.
M.I. also claimed that there was a due process violation in imposing upon him a 23-year adult sentence (which was stayed pending completion of the juvenile sentence). He cited Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000), concerning the findings of fact which must underlie a sentence. However, the supreme court found no Apprendi violation. M.I. had waived his right to a jury trial, was tried by the court, and was found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. The court found every element for the statutory sentence beyond a reasonable doubt and sentenced M.I. to a total of 23 years, within the statutory range of the criminal offense committed. In addition, the supreme court noted that the extended jurisdiction juvenile statute is dispositional rather than adjudicatory, and that the appellate court has been uniform in holding that it does not violate Apprendi. This due process claim was, therefore, rejected.
The results below were affirmed.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.