“Since the dispositive statutory term is ‘may,’ there can be no question that the decision whether to invoke the provisions of the Youthful Offenders Act is within the sole discretion of the sentencing judge.”
How later courts described this case
- “Since the dispositive statutory term is ‘may,’ there can be no question that the decision whether to invoke the provisions of the Youthful Offenders Act is within the sole discretion of the sentencing judge.”
- “‘[T]he decision as to whether the imposition of probation is appropriate in a certain case is entirely within the circuit court’s discretion’”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
STARCHER, Justice,
dissenting:
(Filed Jan. 5, 2001)
The sole reason that this young man was “sent back” from the Anthony Center was because he has diabetes; and the Anthony Center didn’t want to be responsible for treating his diabetic condition. The omission in the sentencing order by the sentencing judge of the proper “magic words” was mere *431 ly an inadvertent technical omission that the circuit court quickly corrected.
However, the circuit court didn’t want to require the Anthony Center to treat the defendant’s diabetes; and the circuit also didn’t want to put the defendant on probation. So he was sentenced to a prison term, at the taxpayers’ expense.
I agree with the circuit court that probation may not have been a good choice. But I entirely disagree with the circuit court’s refusal to make the Anthony Center treat the defendant’s diabetes. The law is clear that people should not be denied an otherwise appropriate post-conviction placement, merely because of a medical disability.
I would instruct the circuit court to require the Anthony Center to provide treatment for the defendant’s diabetes.