concerns about the safety of the communities and also by getting the sex offenders the sex offender specific treatment they need at the ninety fourth general assembly passed his amendment to section five dish a test one to provide for extended imus are terms for th certain class of sex offenders they have to serve an extended term in public ninety four one sixty five also created a scheme for and supervising for implementing this new extended  amendments effected by public ninety four one sixty five the supervising officer essentially but formally known as a parole officer prepares a progress report every one hundred eighty days twice a year he reports on the offenders compliance with the conditions of our including the offenders participation in progress in the sex offender treatment and that report is submitted to the p r procedure after the initial three years certainly the offender may apply to the statutes provides the offender may apply for discharge i don't know if it necessarily would have to the charge would have to be the amendments affected by publication of before one sixty five write a procedure for the offender to apply for discharge he has to have the recommendation from a supervising officer plus a report evaluation prepared within one hundred thirty days than the executive branch the agency had emissaries always arisen by operation of law and it's always attached automatically such that it's not infrequent that circuit court judgments leave off either inadvertently purposely leave off that m s r term and because it arises by law or attaches by operation of law in the illinois department of corrections simply calculates the offender sentence to include the statutory term so in that sense it's what the fourth district is done here and defend its preferred interpretation here would require it to parcher from that current law in practice requiring the judge to select in specifying his new extended term limits or that the general assembly must have intended what it said that these offenders are to serve indeterminate three to life i mean stark terms extended terms she did to their progress in sex offender treatment defendants brief also raises a new issue challenging the prosecutor's questioning of the vineyard for deer and i'd like to address that in my remaining time contends that the prosecutors questioning whether the comment from a representative of this house bill creates lifetime supervision for high risk offenders and then yes represented gorn right and then the defense says senator harmon in describing the bill says it permits courts to enact lifetime supervision for the highest risk offenders that is that's a correct recitation ok so how do we rely on legislative intent based upon those two comments as to what the statute  defendant says it means it doesn't rule out that i don't know that necessarily implies that i determine a term that a court must or a judge must select to determine and i miss archer from within that three years to life range and also if you look at the the context of the senator harmon statement as a whole i'm not sure if he was choosing his words very precisely if you look at the context it says  views i have certainly have two completely arguably two completely different understandings of what the section does and if that's the case there's a fault of this court without discerning legislative intent what the policy is and we're not policymakers that's correct it's course not policy makers again i don't think that these two these two statements of legislative intent brief though they are necessarily conflict and i think taking it back again when you look at the context of the the some told leave the amendments that were affected to various sections and subsections of the code of corrections you can see that the legislature was intending to create this extended supervision term and that they also amended other subsections to create this this procedure to implement them get to p r b new powers provided these hundred eighty day reports etc so i don't think to court would be placed in the position but yes the court does not have is not a legislative body but the courts not being asked to do that in a van he had her alone to her office on a side road off a familiar state route parked and a deserted area and he sexually assaulted her in the back of the van there were no other witness and he didn't testify right did have some mental mental delays shall we say and so they tried to suggests that maybe she was not telling the truth right there for her veracity and did they raise the issue of her failure to immediately report this event defendant yes and i argued in closing that that's a reason to find the defendant not guilty of this crime so the the broader question related directly to the theory of defense they were directed no i would disagree with that that support to questions were directed to determine whether potential jurors would be biased against the complainant and hold it against her both against her failure to make an immediate outcry these questions are open ended talking about the question they're open ended questions they never suggested an answer they were not leading did not imply that any of the reasons that the persons offered were correct or pleasing to the prosecutor the simply looking for bias against the complainant against her testimony i mean perhaps the best way to illustrate this is to look at cases in which the prosecutor's question was held to be error and you can see it simply didn't arise to that level so in people versus boston questions pretty educated indoctrinated the jurors and talked about the theory of the case here very leading questions so in boston for example the question here but they say wouldn't you agree can't you all agree that even though a victim had a protective order of protection she would have to consent to a sex act things along that nature  planting the answer very leading questions and essentially created you caging the jury and basically trying the the factual issues i'm similarly in boston people vs boston w the asked whether they believe where the jurors believe that a person could plan to carry out a murder even if the victim was a family member as a solution to problems within the relationship that kind of indoctrinating did not encourage  fails to show that he was tried before biased jury the jurors all indicated that they understood and accepted the rule for thirty one b this their principles they were all this  the complainants testimony she explained why she did not report and the presumed to follow their instructions in assessing the credibility of her explanation for her delayed report and similarly for the same reasons or many of the same reasons defended stricklin claim fails because counsel could not have been deficient for failing to object to this line of questioning when it was not error and even if counsel were somehow deficient failing to object to defendant cannot show there was prejudice me please the court counsel my name's colleen morgan i'm from the office of the state appellate defender and i represent mr thomas rinehart in response to one of the questions that this court has asked this court doesn't have to make decisions about policy or look into the legislative debates in this case because contrary to the state's argument the plain language of the m source statute is clear it's not ambiguous the statute doesn't use the terms indefinite or indeterminate the legislature have stated that the m s r term for sex offenders would be indeterminate or it could have stated that every sex offender would be subject to a life term that's only shortened by the p r b but it didn't if the legislature wanted to make such a radical departure from our system of determinant seven saying it would have clearly expressed that intent in the plain language of the statute instead the statute is strafford it in a fashion to require a determinant sentence  determinant term of m s r and that language is similar to many other sentencing statutes in the criminal code such as the firearm enhancement statute emma's harsh statute is formatted in exactly the same manner as s r between three years and life for sex offenders now the same language is mirrored in the firearm and statute where the court is required to add a fifteen year sentence for offenders who possess a gun a twenty year sentence for offenders who personally discharge a weapon but the firearm enhanced statute also requires that when an offender discharges a weapon and causes bodily harm or death the trial court shall add to the prison  twenty five years or up to a term of natural life now in both statutes with m s r and the firearm enhanced with statute the trial courts required to add an additional term to the prison sentence and in both statutes they provide for both set terms that's just reflective it's the same as section three it requires that the p r b can establish conditions of m s r and impose sanctions the whole scheme that's been created by this public act is just in addition or a little bit of a change to the scheme that already existed p r b as always have the authority to impose conditions and sanctions for m s r they've always had the ability to release offenders early they've always had the ability to determine when a violation of the higher revocation of m s r and all of the new amendments in the public act just tweak everything that's already been there so that the p r b can enforce this with relation to the extended terms which are going to be running longer than three years they can be up to light so the statute allows for the p r b to properly  do its duty and force the terms of m s r but within an extended term so it's providing for review and after a certain amount of time instead of just the two one two or three years it's allowing that when a defendant needs to be rican find they don't go in for the entire amount they're m s r sentence where it would have been only one two or three years but now it can only be two years there  ameliorated by the fact that the statute does provide for this periodic review and for only certain amounts of incarceration so i don't i think the way that they were to the statute in the way they've provided for things that if someone got an extended term at least you said it and in term of the term excuse me not an extended term i apologize but as far as indeterminate i mean an offender would never know when he would be able to  how long they don't know who makes that ultimate determination i think a lot of that is up and up in the up in the air when you say that they're allowed to make an indeterminate sentence and it comes back to the fact that we don't have indeterminate the defendant about it but hasn't mentioned sentencing i think you raised three different issues one is about the opposite that m s r applies just by operation of law what the language range of sentences means and and  o something to do with admonished originally by operation of law the trial court is required to add a lot of mandatory sentences and that doesn't mean that it's deprived of its power to be able to fashion a sen i mean for every class sex offender the trial court is precluded from giving probation he has to sentence someone to a prison sentence but he still has discretion to give a sense between six and thirty years same thing goes for street value fines and some controlled substance offenses there were acquired but the court still has discretion determined how much that is just because a trial court has to impose a mandatory sanction doesn't mean that it's  that's a different issue but if if they're properly admonished him but then the sentencing the trial court doesn't mention the imposition of two years of very much for example but it still impose what difference if the trial were you're going to get them as far as the statute provides you know in another case or in this one well if the statute provides that it's going to be a set term then the defendant will know or should know that if he's convicted of a class one fence he's going to get a class two sentence but if it's a sex offender and he's not told at the time of sentencing what his sentence will be because it could be three years or it could be up to natural life then and if it hasn't been impos then it has to be returned i suppose the monitoring question only comes up in the terms of whether there has been a guilty plea in that case if a defendant's told you can get a term from three years to life and then it's sent back later for the trial court to impose a sentence the defendant doesn't he still being getting the benefit of his guilty plea because he's getting what he's been told it's going to be a term in between that range but this court also had a question regarding  the language in the statute and the range of the schneider court misinterpreted the language of the statute when it held that the statute was ambiguous and that's because it looked at the term range and used it as a noun and believe that it meant the trial court can impose a range or an indeterminate sentence on it defend it but what the statute actually says is that sex offenders will have m s r terms that range or fall within  certain points between the maximum a minimum so the language when you read it plainly says not that the court can give an indeterminate sentence but that it will give a term of them a star that bra you're imposing a range of sentences to have the defendants will have a term of m s r that show range or be between this maximum minimum and that's the plain language of the statute and that's why that the snyder court theoretically the rain a judge could do that but you know we based our justice system on the idea that the judge is going to impose the sentence that's proper for each particular defendant under the circumstances of each offense in  of his background and his potential for rehabilitation in the danger to the public and in all these sorts of things i mean if we don't think the judge is going to consider the proper factors with regard to m s r then how can we say he's considering the proper factors with regard to if the trial court is looking at a particular defendant and seeing their background or or realizing they've had a sex offender evaluation or something that presents them as a risk that would be an appropriate sentence for him to say at the time you know that the the protection of the public is paramount here or i don't think he can be rehabilitated he has a lot of mental health issues and i think he should have a lifetime sentence if the trial court is making that decision based on the facts and circumstances of the case that would be proper but at the same time the court would have the option to give him ten years or four years or twelve years or anything within that range if he feels that would be a better term or a better opportunity for the defendant to do to do  to become acclimated to society and better fit in with the public and rehabilitate himself in regards to the board here question the state argues that that there really wasn't any harm in the type of question that was asked here because it didn't indoctrinate the jury but what the question's actually did is they catered the jury towards the state's case was there a specific who or question about the specifics in the case there wasn't as far as you mean the but the facts of the case no what's worse is that because this happened before there were any facts presented at that case we had no idea of it what her motivations would have been when the prosecutor was asking the jurors why do you think someone would delay in reporting why would someone who's been sexually assaulted or why would a rape victim not come forward instead of letting them infer why a did what she did he was putting them in the victim's shoes so they were taking the facts of their own lives and their own emotions their own feelings and their own biases and coming up with answers and so that was even more harmful than if the state had if the state really wanted to find out if these jurors had a disqualifying state of mind they could have asked you biased against people who don't immediately report allegations of sexual abuse they could get a yes or no question and it would have been over but instead he was asking all of these questions that require the jury to sort through their own emotions and feelings and empathize with the victim even though they've not even seen her testimony you can kind of see what the opposite effect of that would have been if the defense had asked a question relating to specifically its theory of the case as the prosecutor asked relating to their theory of this case they would have been able to ask questions like can you think of a reason why a rape victim would lie can you think of a reason why someone who's been assaulted would make up allegations that's something that would never be allowed but that's the converse that's how important this question was to the to the case that's the defense's only way of kind of going against the state's case here was to establish that eighty one a credible witness the state's the state had no forensic evidence they had not no cooperation at all all they had was it was word that the offense took place so the defense that the only thing that they could do was attack her credibility and her credibility was the one thing that the state bolstered by asking the jurors to sympathize with her even before they were term given these periodic again twice yearly progress reports you missed our rises as as a matter of law and in every case and defendant here is asking for the and really there's no precedent for a judge to select select an amazon from within that range again keeping in mind that it's the p r b and not the court that is getting these periodic reports on the defendant's progress in sex offender treatment might not report all defense argued that it's error defendant failed to argue much less demonstrate that the evidence was closely balanced or that this was a structural error for the scorching force forfeiture of that