eli but throughout her pre k through our proceedings in two thousand and sixteen her counsel requested that should be screened for drug court for instance during a pretrial proceeding counsel requested that should be stripped screen for drug court  there are four issues in this case however today or playing one discussing only the nd issue as ordered by this court nevertheless if your honour's have any questions regarding her main issues please feel free to ask so the issue here is whether the trial screening in which comes before section b in c they go through eligibility and if you look deeper into the statue sections d and e talk about innovation and sanctions in the drug court program also looking at section it talks about the defendant's willingness and sure the drug court program and their willingness to enter into a guilty plea i believe and both of those things aren't things that will be determined act and eligibility screening so it must come whole defendant and allows them to look at the criminal history the current crime of the defendant is charged with their education whether they live in the county things like that the drug court screening allows the judge also see the whole before making an eligibility determination of whether the drug or treatment program would be a good fit further the statutory language shows that the screening is mandatory even though the trial court that the trial court did not and the truck courts denial before a mandatory evacuation was a premature exercise of discretion that did not have to defend his statutory right to have the court consider this task report similarly here the statutory scheme suggests that the screening needs to be completed before eligibility is determined and here the track court refused to grant the screen before finding that the defendant was not  those similarly the trial for prematurely exercise this discretion because of its misinterpretation of the statue and denying mrs pronto her right to have the trial court consider the drug screening in its determination ineligible because aggravated you are is a crime of violence however it is not specifically listed in the statute as a crime of violence nor is it included in the more expansive language of the end of the subsection  says it can be considered a crime of violence if it involves a firearm because the aggravated you are was not specifically listed in the statute as a crime of violence and this crime didn't involve the fire it should be seen as an two points st of all it's a th district case and nd of all it deals with crime of violence in a completely different contexts it deals with curt interpret what a crime of violence is under the rights of crime victims and witness not the drug court treatment act so the drug treatment act deserves its own consideration and it's also worth noting on this point that the united states supreme court in a case called  immigration or movability context so overall pronto was facially eligible for drug but the court refused to order the mandatory screening because it mistakenly believed aggravated you i was a crime of violence and that screen was not a magic so now specifically looking to what this court has requested in the county drug so they have been a supplement to the core as of last week and they're virtually similar but just so you for your reference when you're looking at the materials for the two thousand and seventeen materials have additional appended material that's the easiest way to tell the two documents apart so referral then screening process before the drug court team and eventually the judge determines the defendant's eligibility and it's at this screening where probation determines and initial eligibility by examining things like so this means it would not be until after the screening had started where they could determine that the current crime to defend its charge with makes him or her eligible for drug court so and then contemporaneous to this probation screening that happens there's a substance abuse screening that happens with the treatment rider and that's where the defendant can talk to this treatment provider about the substance abuse issues that he or she has and whether he or she is interested in participating in the program then after this dreaming is completed eligibility is then determined by the drug court team with a recommendation to the judge for admission into the drug court program if the defendant is eligible and the judge and the judge approves admission then the case would proceed on to an admission hearing which is essentially a guilty plea hearing this is the process that should have applied to pronto after her initial were for zero which was made multiple times by defense counsel she should have been automatically screen for drug court and then her eligibility should have been determined by the drug her team however the court misapprehended a long and short circuited the statutory process which violated his right to have all of these materials considered before and eligibility determination was made in conclusion if there are no question is the screening and assessment by an agent of the state of illinois which is frequently considered a probation officer so this screening process could be as simple as a group of e mails that talk about a certain defend then or it could be when they have their weekly or monthly meetings when they talk about the entirety of their caseload and whether or not they're going to admit new individuals into the program vacuum be sufficient to be the initial screening for the program the problem here is that defendant greets the defendant must come in and agreed to plead guilty and there are several procedures to say that a screening is automatically required circumvent all of that and just say that any person who walks into the court is is the team shall discuss all aspects of the case make a determination whether or not to accept defendant into the program with the judge making the final decision therefore the trial court in this instance was exercising his discretion in not  tting her into drug court even if this court were to find that it was not a crime of violence it doesn't matter because it was the trial judge discretion was based on the statute trial  denies that they have a drug problem if the defendant denies that they have a truck problem that's part of the statute so if a defendant denies they have a drug problem it's that within the trial court's discretion to then say you're not admitted into drug  in the statute some of the things could be the crime which they're convicted whether or not they deny their drug problem what kind of crimes they were charged with any previous  statute and even the eligibility six thousand one hundred and sixty six x forty five comes before the procedure section when you look at the breakdown of how the order of how things are done within the procedure section one sixty six dash twenty it was the screening before the eligibility perceive years before the admission and sanction procedures so it should be treated that way and that's here in this case and that would be consistent with how should be determined during the screening process not during the admission process even as evidence in the statute it comes in so when you look at once if he says six dash twenty it talks about admission into the dollars it is that so there's a screening and assessment and subsection a about statute and both are required by the court before before the admission subsections are talked about within section one thank you very much