please the court your honors in two thousand and twelve the state convicted nicholas class for an act that was entirely constitutional there is no dispute that conviction is void there's also no dispute that that was a felon because the predicate felony is void the state cannot need its burden of proving that claxton had a valid felony conviction this court should reverse this conviction was the with the previous conviction from two thousand and twelve or was why that's relevant is the state's argument on this case the state argues that this court should overlook the three published in seven unpublished cases that have found in this exact situation have reversed defendants convictions and instead should look federal law addressing situations which are not directly on points well because to whether the third is white in the true sense sure but what the difference is that this is there's the language in those cape cases frankly isn't entirely clear a lot of them the court didn't your honor the difference is that the act itself was constitutional there may be unconstitutional problems in those cases but the act itself the crime the defendants were charged with not in a single one of those cases with the act itself ca whatever reason it was about guilt was there were three cases where the convictions were expunged but not because they didn't happen it was because the state procedures in those cases were these as you say the expungement laws were a lot broader than they are an illinois rationale behind all the rationale is a desire for certainty and if i can address that your honor in illinois in people versus girsh the illinois supreme court said that the desire for certainty cannot trump defendant's constitutional rights and improve its pristine versus well if the supreme court in two thousand and six said we're defendants constitutionally protected rights are issue strict application of the void at an issue of doctrine punish him for concept that's constitutional but what i'm wondering is how how can we reach now how can this court reach down and grab ahold of the underlying unlawful use of weapons case that we don't it's not part of the notice of appeal that we don't have jurisdiction it doesn't have to your honor the question for this court is whether the evidence on this case on direct appeal is sufficient to prove mr claxton guilty of unlawful possession of a weapon by a  down it doesn't have to pull a date a conviction sure we do because when they when they tried him back in two thousand and twelve they introduced a certified happy conviction and when they introduced isn't that what people first flowers tells us we do almost report tell us that we shouldn't be involving ourselves in the question of whether or not the underlying cases boy or not boy that we should leave that for another court that has seeking to have that conviction vacated he has filed a petition for relief from judgment but what's more important later tells all the colors here it's more important here is that the state hasn't even contested you don't eat the court doesn't have to involve itself in anything the state has involving ourselves and whether or not that's a valid convention or no i don't believe so your honor the state hasn't relied on flowers i don't i think certainly that our position would be that the state doesn't have to seize me that this court doesn't have to vacate actually the underlying conviction but it is very much the court is required to determine whether the state has met its burden in this particular case proving that in elements of the offense and the elements of the offense at issue is the validity of the underlying conviction so this court has to in order to do its job in this appeal it has to look at that issue and if i made the supreme court i the illinois supreme court has addressed not the exact factual scenario but because it is a long existing void of an issue of doctrine and several of the supreme court's holdings on this point are very important the supreme court  later says something is boy in your own personal history that you can't possess a gun because you have a felony conviction is that all about the rule of law to address the first part of your honor's question candidly yes that is in a sense what the federal cases stand for but none of the federal cases involve a situation where the state should never have charged that person and here it would be improper to continue to punish mr claxton for the state's error if the state had an illegally charged him in that case with a an offense and convicted him of something that is constitutionally protected conduct then he wouldn't have a felony conviction and we wouldn't be in a situation but more importantly even if this court  look at the question of whether mr claxton should be kept be considered a felon at the time of this conduct the church conduct in this case the answer is actually no because of the void have been issued doctrine because is this co recognized and is the supreme court has repeatedly recognized if the the statute issuing a u i or never is to be deemed as never having had any effect then he can't ever be considered a felon he should not authority to go back and look at what the state presented in a previous draft now let me ask you this is there any retroactivity question or issue before us in terms of the will our position there is not your honor statute is quote repugnant and instantaneously perverts the rights guaranteed to every citizen so refusing to hold a retroactive would clearly offend all sense of due process and so respectfully your honor i do think that the the retroactivity is especially relevant to this case because it is addressed this situation and is not just your honor distinguishes it this case is worse this case is far worse for the state than anything addition f violating a right to a bench trial pro hurts all sense of due process then certainly relying on a conviction that involves constitutional conduct also perverts all sense of due process and as to the jurisdiction issue of this court i'm not aware of any cases exactly on point and that's probably because it is so rare for the illinois supreme court to find an entire offense unconstitutional that's why i'm not aware of any cases this what is now an unconstitutional yet you are but there were merged counts that may not have fallen under that decision i mean in the of situation is it appropriate for us to be grabbing this grabbing the underlying conviction and  know that's right your honor i think that without having considered the issue enough i think that the proper remedy probably would be to remain and if there were an existing valid felony that had not it wasn't now it wasn't anything like that it actually was part of the absolutely not your honor what we have here is a defendant who was punished for constitutional conduct in the first case and is now being replenished because the state is seeking to take the benefit of its own illegal conduct and use it again against mr cla let me ask you to same question this result be a fair justice yes around this defendant was a convicted felon on that date on august fourth two thousand and twelve he knew he was a convicted felon on that date and yet felt all right now i'll put it like is your office or the office of the attorney general of this state in any way appealing that decision from what i understand your honour's the attorney general's situations where where where he has a gun and and twenty love and he has a gun now both of those are not against the law but you're saying you should be in the penitentiary for two things of that are against the law because he was a convicted felon on that da effectively wiping it from the books as if he was not actually a convicted felon on that date he possessed that weapon the ninth circuit found that that was irrelevant they said let's point out that it all comes down to what is her me two different sirens i'm wondering if illinois writes to the same theory that federal courts do with regard to this i mean we all know that illinois has this it's it's just right said it's a question of spending here but what makes it the same to all these federal cases these are based on predicate convictions and this statute is it's a simple stand shipped felons may not possess guns if you're a felon on that date you may not possess a gun you may believe that you were wrongfully convicted on the original one but until you get into a quarry he couldn't really go with it he owns it in this case because there was nothing out there that said  one last point on those federal cases your honors is that with several of them including lee including those involved cases where the defendant before trial had actually already had that prior conviction vacated one proton to a date before he possessed the weapon and yet in both cases the federal circuit courts of appeal affirmed his convictions because it helped that it doesn't matter that was vacated after the fact that it was us that wea as long as the appellate court has jurisdiction or the supreme court and there's no question this court has jurisdiction over the case there was a conviction a properly filed notice of appeal a direct appeal from that conviction and a question of the sufficiency of the evidence to  conviction as to the state's entire argument essentially boils down to the fact that they believe five thousand was a convicted felon and august twentieth well and mr no extra civically said his conviction still exists in people versus tell us conviction still his underlying conviction in this case still exists the state could not directly answer justice corns question as to whether this is an unfair situation it said you should have appealed that in a different way he's