good and i enjoyed that poem which she used that line of course she wrote many times since then but that's the extent of my knowledge of literature so i'm not my i hope you're not going to ask many questions along that line but what i mean by that and what i think she meant by that was a bit when all said all said and done a thing is what it is and that's what we have before the court today we have a individual who was sentenced to periodic imprisonment facts but nonetheless in the case before us the sentencing judge judge greenleaf on five separate occasions referred to my client's sentence as work meant what is no later on with regarding the one time pass that my client had to enjoy the birth of his child sensing judge says he will not be released until such time from work release he will not furloughed until she is actually in the hospital regarding the companion dui case that's not before the court because he only received a six month periodic prison sentence concurrent with that he said there will be six months of work release when determining my client's reporting date which was to be the monday following the sentencing hearing judge greenleaf says what i'm thinking at this point because there is a work release and it's a certain amount of trust that's involved the first day that he should report for work release and that will be to the sheriff and then he goes on like i said a rose is a rose arose based upon the record in this case it was clear in my estimation that judge greenleaf intended that my client serve a term of work release his mistake was is assuming i think that it could be beyond a twelve month maximum that's provided by statute if the program is comparable to that under article thirteen of the criminal code in order our position is  that it's comparable in the sense of it's similar to i think it was judge lee greenleaf's intent that my guy served work release i know he was concerned and you can see that in the transcript in the sentencing hearing with the fact that my guy continued to support his family so what he did in the two orders that reference periodic imprisonment he ordered the defend to spend each night rather if you work or not for the eighteen month period of time he was to spend each day that he wasn't working so for example you work the pipeline and if he was working construction and it rained out he wasn't to go anywhere he was to stay confined he was to be released for work purposes only with the exception of the one time pass all of his compensation to the court's office every penny this is similar to the article thirteen for vision that provides that the department essential can set up an account or they will set up an account or an account that they to write and that the defendant earnings were to be placed in that account in this particular case my client was order that basically anything left over after paying the clerk's fee of thirty seven fifty a day for periodic imprisonment that in fact it was to be given directly to his wife for the support of the family this is a little different than article thirteen because an article thirteen the access if you will over the expenses department or place where with the defendant the wraps so it's a little more restrictive than article thirteen he was to go to and from his employment by the most direct route he was not to enter any building or vehicle other than for work purposes he couldn't stop at a convenience  county that doesn't have a formal program can be sentenced to work release i think as the court did in this particular case i think the court can clearly fashion a work  well i think that my reading of that particular provision means that yes you're sentenced to a county correctional institution right and you're right they could have stopped right there but it goes on to say ordered the defendant to serve eighteen months periodic imprisonment with service of ninety days confinement let's also assume that there's a case that in that particular case the court only required as a part of the ninety day confinement that the defendant spend so many weekends per month during that period of eighteen months and he could catch up on the end in terms of the total ninety days in that particular case there's no question the sense of periodic imprisonment he was pretty in the hypothetical present before there's no question that it's periodic imprisonment because he's permitted to leave during and not even come in during the course of a war if it's not respond it well and the so mean that there is no restriction on in other words it doesn't require him to be at work but he just simply doesn't have to come in and that's a sentence of periodic imprisonment that is not part of a work  so i think that there can be and there are there are sentences were the trial court in particular clearly indicates and this was the reyes case clearly indicates that it's not to be considered old work release everything the problem judge sat which specifically was in the order please that you're not been sentenced to work release you're not going to be housed were at work release the defendants apparently they had to suffer  that and basically you're to go to jail immediately ok until there's a dead available and in that particular case there's no question about it the court never intended the defendant to be sentenced to work release program but that's not the case here ok why is that so your position is any his two workers i mean he imposed some rather strange and indecisions if you will or restrictions and he like i said he sort of fashioned his own when there was no formal program that existed but i know i think that no you honor i don't think that every sentence of periodic and president were there permitted to be released for work purposes is in fact a work release within the meaning of this limitation i think that if the order is fashioned inside and if the trial court has given an indication that that's his intent and if the order is in fashion such where they have restrictions similar to mr klein that he's restrictions in the case of bar that i think that that is within the meaning of the staff you that being said accounts and i were joking before we came in here today we were wondering whether or not we're going to take fifteen or twenty minutes of course time but this point in time our position is that the sentence question question here is what is what is the difference between these two connor and admittedly i was a literature major in college i studied medieval at our church time that was quite on the same page as everyone else today that in terms of work really says we've been talking about today help setting it up and it's formalized can the trial court create a comparable program that is permitted to call work yes your honor i think that they could do that but i think that's not what not in a formal work release program because this is a special i spoke ram that was created for this person based on the facts of his case this life circumstances the court accommodated him in order to make sure that he could be successful while still serving a term of periodic imprisonment for the crime that he committed which was reckless homicide a class three felony a term of eighteen months is sasha's morally authorized for that crime your honor is that while the state believes that the term of eighteen months statutorily authorized just to address defendants claims briefly defendant essentially argues that this kind of disclaimer in the statute applies and that it's a twelve month cap in this case first there is no work release program as we've already discussed and second even if you honour's found that this is a work release program that was created even though there is no formal one defendant's program is not comparable to what we have an article thirteen article thirteen is very strict there's a lot of paperwork there's a lot of things that need to be communicated amongst many people the state's attorneys defense counsel probation the court the sheriff's office that's just not what we have here defendant situation was really quite flexible while it might seem rigid on himself as he you know had rules to follow of course he did it's very flexible when you compare that with article thirteen the defendant had a unique situation and the court responded to that with a unique sentance your honor simply there was a little discussion about some of the case law i'd like to briefly mention people versus ortiz in that case the court did say that the eighteen month sentence should be reduced to twelve because defendant participated in a work release program known as the problem with people versus ortiz is that all it says is quote based on the record we find that this was comparable but the court gives us no indication or of what was on the record there's hardly any facts if any at all in people versus ortiz that are helpful to any of us when we decide whether or not this is a comparable program today as defendant stated while he was out here these kinds of cases have to be decided on a very case by case analysis all the cases are different on earth here so why does the same district we're facts yes and raise they gave more information about what the trial court's intent was or what it seemed the intent was based on the sentencing hearing and your honour's and raise the court said the sentence imposed was for eighteen months periodic imprisonment with release for work and treatment but not for participation in the work release program your honor that's what we have here while defendant to say that this is comparable to article thirteen because to find i could leave for work and then find it was able to leave to see the birth of his child article thirteen one take and fall context is aimed only at employment that provision about taking family needs that's actually set apart and a section about self employment and maybe that part of that self employment is you know keep housekeeping duties and things of that nature here defendants periodic imprisonment was not just limited to his employment he was allowed to attend the birth of his child this was so specialized towards him as an individual and as a person which makes it not comparable to prove your turn around i suppose it would be possible but under article thirteen there would be a lot of hoops that you have to jump through a lot of people where a lot of discussions with various parties with the sheriff with the trial court with the state's attorneys and that's not what we have here what we have here is the trial history that was provided by the defendant in his brief and it's still unclear to me defendant has asserted that a formal work release program is not a requirement as a stated by some of the legislative history in that case in this case your honour's and m readings of the legislative history that defendant provided i don't think that's the case legislative history doesn't say that if the trial court creates some kind of an order that specialized in this way that it somehow part of a work release acceptable as an acceptable term periodic imprisonment that's what the court hears sentence the defendant to based on his particular life circumstances and that's why your honour's the sentence is not a part of a work release program and it's not comparable to article work release program and the defendant said i have a job i have counseling my counseling is in thirty so really you go to right mastic violence counseling across the street well your honor under article thirteen there is them time requirements they are things have to be you know the sheriff has to be informed about things long advance and will  honor i'm actually i'm glad that you brought that up it's something i wanted to address in terms of defendant's own order periodic imprisonment a lot of defendants order as almost kind of honor code based for example he's allowed to work overtime hours if yes this defendant is allowed to work overtime hours and it seems from this order that all he asked to do is just you know get some sort of written something from his employer the time sheet that says yeah i worked overtime today and that's fine your honor under article or  doing that here defendant is able to go to work he has a two hour grace period before he goes to work and after he goes to work because he works construction at that various locations he was required to give the sheriff a schedule you know where he's going to  be roughly how far away that is before the week began but here he could work overtime he could and he his schedule could change and he wasn't going to get punished for that because he had so much flexibility in his specialized order of periodic imprisonment and addition to that he was then allowed to attend the birth of his child which is something that's not envisioned in article thirteen as that's a personal family matter that has nothing to do with work whatsoever your honor three days reasons schedule but it was still he had to submit that schedule in advance to the sheriff if there was over time he had to submit additional documentation with regard to the overtime he was basically to go there and come back go there and come back with regard to the radios case counsel this practice based upon the rock and what we have in the race case that we don't have here we had a sentencing judge who made it crystal clear that he did not intend that this guy get that the defendant get the benefit of the work release program in the limitation that he didn't address the woman patient but he made it crystal clear that he was not be incentives for work reasons he was ordered to immediately go to jail that they sense in the rays case he was ordered to serve in the general population when the bed became available the sentencing or worse itself says he has not been sentenced for workers so there is no wonder the based on the facts of that case the appellate court in the second district different from work east but the court in the second district determine that based upon the record there was no and therefore he wasn't subject to the twelve month limitation council speaks about article thirteen and i think one of the justices one of you asked her with regard to  article thirteen and she said and with regard to being released for the birth of child now we're talking about she also mentioned hoops the record reflects that mr clendenning also petitioned for her all over the christmas  said that this provision under article thirteen that allows the court or allows an individual to be released for an hour or attending the family needs applies in self employment situations and that's it and that's language that you can be released for that purpose under our tease the individual was released for work and treatment purposes but that didn't destroy the fact that he was placed on work release just like