good morning everyone and thank you very much for your consideration and the oral argument story and we're very happy to be back in person with everyone  predicated on criminal sexual assault under the abstract elements test of the principle behind the one act one crime doctrine is that people generally shouldn't be punished multiple times for the same con d violence is a necessary included offense because it is impossible to commit armed violence without committing the underlying funds and support stated that the charging of the specific predicate felony made that felony unnecessary included offense under the elements test scores also noted that if the legislature wanted a different result they would have said so in the language  himself this court cited as an example of the application of the elements to test a case that held that the predicate to felony murder isn't included offense of felony murder even though theory be committed by a committee of any number of underline felonies and this is also completely consistent with how the united states supreme court has stated the ultimate test should be cold to states but it hasn't and the fact that the legislature had amended the armed violence statute to provide four separate sentences for just a small number of listed stated that it intended the strike elements test to be consistent with the same elements test used by the u s supreme court in double jeopardy cases in country the state by is not asking this court to reapply charge into its approach we're not asking this court to look to the charged facts we don't we're not asking this court to see how to consider how he allegedly committed the criminal sexual assault just that he was charged with criminal sexual assault on turning to the home invasion sta to the self the legislature was well aware of how to get felonies were treated under illinois law at the time that the home invasion statute was amended to include criminal sexual assault as a predicate and if the legislature wanted the predicate felonies or predicate offenses of home invasion to be treated differently than those of armed violence felony murder they would have said so and there's a line to the statute and the legislature knows how to do this again looking at the harm violence statute it stiffly wrote out in the language of the statute that which offenses it wanted to have have separate sentences don't have any merit and the court or the state notes that home invasion doesn't necessarily have a higher sentence than criminal sexual assault but you know this court rejected that   in addition and those the there's the times where criminal sexual assault could have a higher sentence than home invasion are very few and in those situations the prosecution could always just pursue simply the criminal sexual assault or it can charge home invasion under the other subsection such as a subsection charging someone with breaking into someone's house and causing an murder incorporates the mental state of the predicate felony over that's not a distinguishing feature home invasion completely incorporates the mental state for a criminal sexual assault you can commit a home invasion predicated on criminal sexual assault without committing criminal sexual assault and you can't commit criminal sexual assault without having the rest requisite mental state therefore in order to prove home invasion predicated  from the sexual assault you have to have you have to prove the mental state for the crime the sexual assault finally the court the state argues that because section five dash the charging instrument and reasoning that the court rejected a military court adopted the actual documents a tast in miller to ensure that defendants were held liable for the full measure of their criminal conduct it's a very formulaic approach is it practically or theoretically impossible to commit one crime without making the nd you can commit home invasion by entering someone's home without authorization and threatening them with a knife no criminal sexual assault even if we focus the analysis purely on subsection a sex of the home invasion statute you can commit home invasion under a six by entering someone's home without statutes criminalizing multiple criminal acts even were committed in the course of a single course of criminal conduct you know if the general assembly didn't want the defendant held liable for both of those criminal violations you could have said so the elements are fully contained you can't commit subsection a for armed robbery without committing the other offense this is different here it's possible to commit one offense without committing the other one and the analogies to armed violence and felony murder that defendant relies on are not persuasive for a few reasons st off those cases do create miller and if you look at the approach the court takes in those cases it's very different than the approach that that the court adopts in miller selling murder is a unique crime in the present unique concerns of this court has addressed repeatedly because  the state is substituting the mens rea element of the predicate felony for the ordinary requirement in st degree murder that approved knowledge or intent it's not just that the elements of the predicate felony have to be proven in felony murder it totally supplants any felonious purpose to the killing and so many murder similarly when this court talked armed violence and donaldson and discussed it as a single act i think for many purposes possession of a firearm would be viewed as a nd act by this court but the discussion in donaldson focused on the idea that it's a single act it's really just an aggravated or handsome version of the underlying family home invasion is very different the grieving than a home invasion is the authorized entry into someone's home and then you do any number of things once you've broken into that person's home to complete a home invasion one of those things is committing criminal sexual assault but if you look at the elements of the statute again even if we focus on subsection a says in the state's position is that it it would be better to look at the statute as a whole but this case doesn't even require the court to answer that question you can even under subsection a six you can complete the home invasion without committing a criminal sexual assault  know it's also noteworthy that after the court decided that the predicate felonies for armed violence were all lesser included offenses the general assembly turned around and said no and in many cases we do intend for the defendant to a ho liable for both offenses and at the time it added subsection a six to home invasion the mandatory consecutive sentencing statute already made clear that the general assembly intended in every circumstance where someone commits a criminal sexual assault that they mean that they face a separate consecutive sentence for that criminal sexual assault you know as your honor's question  defendants liable for the full measure of their criminal conduct and that's exactly why this court adopted each trip this task the abstract elements test in miller and again it's a very formulaic task in the application of it here makes clear that it is possible to commit home invasion without committing criminal sexual assault and because defendant concedes that there are multiple acts involved here that that includes the court's analysis and makes clear that the language in the indictment to evaluate whether it was a lesser offense why should we do the same here even if your honour's do look at the specific subsection of home invasion there are i believe six different ways to complete subsection  violate that subsection home invasion without committing a criminal sexual assault you know it one of the differences between armed violence and this  home without authorization thinking they're home and that's really the even of a home invasion and then you've committed this separate crime with its own felonious purpose with its own mens rea and it's a crime that the general assembly has explicitly stated it things warrants a separate consecutive sentence so to slice the the statute as didn't we as defendant does which again requires not just looking at  subsection of the statute but the actual charging instrument would bring us right back to the problem that miller identified and corrected by abandoning the charge and ensuring approach with what the general assembly's intent here  was adopting the abstract elements test which was the equivalent to the same elements test as the united states supreme court uses and united states supreme court element test you look at the actual predicate felony not just  predicate included offense is that the over line defense includes all of the underlying all of the elements of the on the underlying offense i mean goin back to the consecutive sentences argument  this court already are if you are already held in rugby league is that the one act one crime doctrine is set forth in king also applies to offenses that are subject to consecutive sentences under for mandates consecutive sentences for criminal sexual assault that that was somehow over right at the one at one crime doctrine as it was known in illinois for years so much as