if as far as this particular appeal is concerned i think the sense folks have both an interesting legal issue but also a very very serious issue for my client as we sit here today he said in danville serving a three year ago so i would ask you to keep that in mind as as we proceed to rule on this particular appeal beginning with the supreme court of each of them following through with the legislature's amendment i'm going to call it four point five the actual hundreds the calculation only of a term provision the concept of home confinement has been braced i think is a logical attempt at an alternative to incarceration especially in light of the modern technology which was in fact utilized in this case the verify that the terms of the home confinement are in fact followed why this is such a good thing we all can see the benefits at no cost to the government no cost for the food no cost for the housing in fact in this particular case and i think in most cases like this even the electronic monitoring defendant in this particular case was allowed to accomplish his apprenticeship as a pipe fitter so he's able to achieve things all at the same time being confined to his home really in no different circumstances than being confined in what would  we would consider the deep incarceration so i would present the general issue in this case the your honour's as whether a person place in phone confinement as a consequence of an appeal bond should be given credit for some time as states yet but just to our initial arguments the first is that judge peterson's order definitely qualify for home detention two ways i would submit your orders to look at this particular aspect of our argument the first is that both authority to follow the order in the persons required to do that if you remember the facts and be sure it was a daycare program that coke only was running it was a pretrial case and the guy was only there for a hundred seventy one of i think it was two hundred seventy days and he was in the program our particular case the fund was at home every single day and was required to do so so beechen actually the credit was given beach in this case goes a little bit further beyond the concept of the authority of the defendant beaching we can also look at the statutory requirements for home confinement and see if if our case meets his meets those requirements and i think it does i would submit to you it does supervising authority in this particular instance we had the supervising authority was the court through the monitoring system we had a monitoring program going on there and the court was required to be informed if there was any problems with the there was none the less than this case but if there was any problems it was to remain in this house that's the same as section eight  the ash eighty eight dash to see is to remain in this house is to only have approved absences only for educational homework purposes that's exactly what we get here and he had to have a working telephone l which he did in this particular case so i would submit to the court that the order that you're peterson placed on him and i would ask one other point if i could make this crystal clear this was not a request that the defendant this was not june twenty second twenty twelve and we moved to receive his credit for home confinement i'm july third of twenty thirteen the last paragraph of my motion i acted to be sentenced under the new statu and the defendant has the right to see to lack to be elected under a new modified sentence and the fact that judge if he was in custody if we do come to the conclusion that he was in custody at a time and the calculation of his term it's would seem to be something that he would be entitled to to embrace that and again if there is an ambiguity it has to be resolved in favor of the defendant in this particular case so i would say judge in this instance he was in custody if we if did he had a monitor so he was the minute he left he went to work the minute he was done with work he went home and that was his pressure program so wasn't he was a reporting to any agency or he was reporting to was the apprenticeship program and that's what he was doing but he was under to call home confinement custody it's ok to do that here in illinois we're going to resolve ourselves to say that if we lock a guy up and we order in a sane us house and maybe electronically matter maybe we don't know but if we can find him of we put authority over him that raises to the level of confinement that he should be given credit for and that's a very very simple concept kind of an easy way to look at it if we're going to keep a guy locked up in this house we're going to he's the guy locked up in the jail i'm going to keep a guy locked up in the back with the eleven five zero one provision in there about getting credit that you can't get home confinement credit prior to judgment it does have that language in it but i would say that it does not address the appellate issue but your honor it also doesn't require any kind of confinement fighting as far as a person released on bond and here we really have a i guess a i would submit to the court for consideration what is really the difference of a court and it's only that it happens so rarely that a person is left out o detainee out on a and we know that section four twenty five dash one hundred allows for credit for a person who is on a pretrial that person is presumed innocent and they're getting credit for it so i would hope that you would consider the fact that embracing this concept of if we're going to confine a person whether they're on pretrial bond whether they're on a colored by if it's so granted under whatever conditions that they should be allowed to receive credit for it because that's what the legislature is telling us to give him credit for home confinement or not and i guess i'm looking for an argument that says that he abused his pride in doing that judge i  didn't exist when we were set when we were sentenced however judge he was in custody and i would say that the court when he brought him back here for the remaining had an obligation to calculate or recalculate his prison term based on the eleven mr good morning in the language of section five b seven b the earlier version of the stage and it is used the same as a new section five or one five hundred to be which was in effect when defendant committed a crime and when he was sentenced in the by allowed him to be out and it's not like having a home detention in lieu of incarceration and i believe that's what the statute is is about you can still have a home detention you can still course a defendant has relied on and discussing here earlier versus edges i said drums or the phrase time spent in custody is used in five eight seven b does not include the time the period of time during which the defendant is released on bond regardless of the restrictions that might be imposed as they she's a release the rummest courts of the legislature intended to distinguish institutional custody from release on bond and to allow sentencing credit only for  protections in a deserved each and had no right to be in the program he had no recourse under illinois statutes if the sheriff said it to return him to jail so there was no procedure for him he just went back to we have a new hearing on the beach a court bond and he was in a structured program that he was required to report to every day to a particular location therefore we submit that the beach i'm holding is not applicable to this particular case  under that statute in this case devoted had not been provided and had been confined to his own but he was allowed to complete an apprenticeship to become a journey pipefitter he was allowed to travel to wisconsin in indiana for work  i don't really see the difference just because there is a company that they had good news because that was one of the you know you can have the alcohol monitoring plus the g p s it's just technology that didn't a specific and you know better than the regular bond if you're out on five you're free to go wherever you choose if it's a felony on us side of the state but here i mean he wasn't just permitted court just says i think maybe what we're suffering from a little bit here is growing and i hate to say that but i think i might i might be right i think we've got some growing pains here as when you as a former prosecutor myself trust me i know how the prosecutor is feeling and in his we're going to talk custody but it's not the state of the walk in illinois right now there's a lot of reasons i think especially the new technology that we get that is the reason why we have changed and we have set straightforward and very directly that home detention shall be considered a cost to the and a person shall be given credit for it and then submit to the court that we have that are growing pains in coming to that concept that me can do it you can confine people in their home without any cost to the state with up and verify their conditions the one other response i would like to make is and it's kind of a chicken or the or the eight argument and justice or brian alerted to it is this concept of he was not in custody quote for the offense for which the sentence was very simple commonsense approach to this new change in the law that home confinement statutorily is considered and we shall give the fed its credit for it this particular defendant would be out today if he's entitled to that particular credit i think the focus i would submit to the court the focus should be the circumstances placed the fuck up high on the defendant and not the tactical nature of the position his case happens to be an appellate bonds are deer in the think we're going to going to mention a growing things because we're getting to the point where if we can embrace this concept that if we're going to confine a person to their home and we can monitor it electronically that well call custody then your question really kind of falls to the wayside but if but it's that's that's very possible judge but there may also be cases where i don't judge would be inclined to enter this kind of order just you know specifically because that's what they want to have happen in this case and as the justices may do when the matter comes before you i think it's a matter of discretion to be option that the court should have available to them in the us and if we do put a person under that kind of authority then they should be allowed to go to for at least that's the status of the walk i think as i see it