there there's no doubt the owners that the facts of the case are tragic there was a motor vehicle accident and somebody was killed and that is tragic for the victim or victim's friends or the victim's family and that goes without saying but denial of justice and due process for the defended takes that tragedy and expands it to all the citizens of the state of illinois and so i want to begin with the  what he was found guilty of the language of a four and again the indictment is not under it for a four makes it illegal to drive under the influence of any drug or combination of drugs through a degree between the substance the drug intoxicant that cause a person to be unable to drive safely section eighty six dollars states that it's illegal regardless of your ability to drive to have any amount of drugs substance or compound in the breath blood or other bodily substance or urine or that results from the unlawful use or consumption of controlled substances in this case methamphetamine control and community protection act so as we sit here today years since the trial years since the events in the years since the indictment was initially filed he has charged never references whether or not he had in his breath blood or other bodily substance or during anything resulting from young awful on lawful consumption of however there is no fact in the record that either of those substances result from the on lawful consumption of a controlled substance of methamphetamine there is simply nothing in the record that shows not even the facts and stipulation that shows where those two substances came from how they came to be in his body whether they were the result of one lawful consumption whether they were even the result of methamphetamine use it could have been the result of a prescription drug could have been the results of an medication could have been resolved maybe things are is not for this court to try and guess what was the result it was for the state for the people start counting to prove or to get the defendant to agree in stipulation that those came as a result of what was charging for section eighty six and again they could have done had they chose not to a bench trial with stipulations does not mean that has to be the only evidence presented additional evidence they could have agreed to stipulate to certain evidence rodentia very reason and then put on more of it but they chose not to and for those reasons they never put on enough evidence to find that he  was guilty of what was charged nor guilty of what he was convicted of which are minor court were two separate things briefly on the constitutionality of section eighty six there is a chemical change in our brain or body in a bottle these substances occur from some of them so if i can remember my time in law school at university of illinois with my friends  and i had a beer at a tailgate i remember that event there is a change in my bodily substance in my bring me my brain chemistry that is the result of the consumption of alcohol at the end of the day this is a philosophical issue that is as old as humans but our memories have to be somewhere if they are in our graves this work believes that our memories are in our brain and anything that creates a memory is necessary to change or effect within our car if you believe in philosophical dualism that's a whole separate story and that's fine but if this court case their brain or our memories exist within a within our body within brain then every event that's occurring right now is causing changes in our brain to remember what's happening right now it's a fair reason i think the statues are over brought in that if somebody took nothing in front of me a broad really but i think it's i think it's bad because the statute could have been written much more narrower in the state has gone out in other areas the state doesn't say you know we have becomes very difficult but just because the science of determining whether or not somebody is impaired hasn't caught up with the drugs that people can take doesn't mean that are constitutional rights to be proven guilty should take should be lessened because we haven't come up with more concrete and scientific ways to determine whether or not somebody was under the influence and so for that reason your honor i think the that statute is is unconstitutional somebodies blood and here and then taking some of these blood must be done with a warning because it's invasion of the body here if it fingerprint or i believe that that must necessarily require warrants as well i think we need to have a warrant before we can do that there were no exit in circumstances he was he was in the hospital and he wasn't going anywhere it was i believe between seven and nine o'clock in the evening something like that in the nearly suggests that course states attorneys the legislature their police department need to work together to come up with modern remedies where it's possible the police need to ask this branch of the government for permission and not forgive yours on the stipulations themselves and on the on the lack of the argument that will be really was never a trial many of the stipulations simply state that people could have testified to things or might testify to things that aren't necessarily  if this court finds it was a crowd don't think those facts are sufficient to sustain a conviction because we only have eight paragraphs with a few so paragraphs of facts alleged facts but many of them are facts and many of them are suggestions of what could or couldn't have happened and because of that i don't think the facts are sufficient to support a conviction and i don't think mr perry ever ever had the trial in fact the court says at page sixteen of the record  the trial court indicates that if we go forward with this you would be stipulating to the facts that the state says that they can prove in this case and there would be no trial mr perry had a right to a trial stark county has before they are sure it's somebody lastly on the ineffective assistance of counsel issues i don't believe those were clearly investigated by the underlying court at all if the of that actual testimony so if it's counsel stipulating that there could have been testimony but then not putting it on i find that to be ineffective perhaps he could if that if the stipulation was such as it was the state of closer evidence in the defense good move for a directed verdict and if it hadn't been received the defense would have been free to put on their own evidence but they never did and nor frankly they think he was ever given the to the and i know i'm short on time but with regards to the court saying it page two hundred and seventy two of the common law record either there was no need to do a mental health or fitness examination of the defended now because consequences of what he's doing here i don't think i can go forward with this but then they break and the defense counsel goes and talks who's defended and coaches him on how to make sure he sounds competent presumably that's not in the record but then regardless of what it was it was replete with concerns and continuances and recesses all based on the inability of the defendant to understand what was going on and to fail either the trial court or the defense counsel counsel and the trial towards error in that regard is use a crucial area of error or rather that requires that if the decision to be reverse not we cannot require or we cannot allow the states to simply say that because one word is within or not heard that they are the same thing they could have stipulated they were stipulating to testimony from experts they could have made a stipulation council argues that the confusion of oyster in the trial was always rectified but it wasn't i really don't believe it was it was continuously repeated everybody had to continually so your mind everybody else oh by the way constitutional right to trial he demanded one he did not proceed with given how far out we are at this point is really right to a speedy trial and the fact that he's been in custody and his right to a speedy trial has expired between a four in a six is the difference between a four in a six is crucial i believe it was mentioned in the briefs of the different parts of the statutes and further  all courts in the state of illinois and i apologize i don't recall he says from what i believe is a supreme court case that says all courts and all judges in the state of illinois have an obligation to purge from the records any order that they find to be  finding somebody guilty under something they have not been charged with is a point word and this court has an obligation and all the justices here have an obligation to purge of would order from the wrecker by either declaring the trial and the