unless there's any objection we love to chat with you primarily about arguments twelve dollars in the briefs i'm sure the court is aware of the additional authority we cited regarding argument three the restitution question and people the purge which we believe is dispositive of the issue happy to answer any questions about the implicate building that case but otherwise i think that our time would best be use talking about arguments one into those are why all of the hot was denied his constitutional right to a jury trial in the dui case and to oliver never committed obstruction of justice as a statute does not apply to his actions on the evidence of any refusal wasn't insufficient to compel mr hunt never wages jury trial right at the october t evidentiary bar for a court to find a waiver jury trials pretty low in fact as far as guaranteed fundamental rights go to the defendant sole decision to make waiver of jury trials probably the fewest requirements if your attorney says you  right to a jury trial if you don't interrupt the proceedings to country them right away many courts will find there to be a valid waiver reviewing courts will usually not disturb the finding but you have to have that initial waiver if it offended or the attorney has to waive the right to a jury trial perfectly or the defendant signature on a written jury of eight ideally the court would quickly advise the defendant that the decision is theirs and confirm their intention to waive the jury trial but at a minimum somebody has to express an intention to waive that right i would say the most fundamental right in our criminal justice system that didn't happen here there was no waiver not spoken not in writing even when questions arose of the next pretrial or sees me at the march st which well i'm sorry i don't know there's a question i any waiver was ever entered on the dui case so when they discuss it again in october when they discuss it again in march they may be talking about you they may be talking about all of the cases quote unquote all the cases but dist type of  is that yes any time the cases were discussed mr hutt was required to jump up and interrupt court and say that you didn't want to waive history right or didn't want to waive it rather i believe that it puts too much on the defendant to make them vigilantly watch their attorney and make sure that they don't forfeit any rights this way we have a one million rules jury instructions everything that's ensure designed to ensure that the jury trial is is the state would seem to propose a different set of rules where you have to ask for that right can you to ask for that right if there's ever any question about it and even when your attorney gets it wrong you need to stand up and demand that right on the day of trial at that point that no longer becomes a right i believe it becomes a mother may i please have that which is i'm trying the constitution game that's not the law and the law shouldn't be changed for this case all over what had a right to a jury trial he never waived that right he stood upon his right to some jury trials and it was denied him as to this case of the guilty finding should be vacating the case remanded so that mr hood has that right back on the obstruction of justice charge as charged in this case person person from the police even if as the state theorized that's done to get alcohol time to dissipate to the body does not commit obstruction of justice under the section and the in the brief we talked about the language of this court used suggesting what the how the legislator needed legislature needed to express that if they did want to apply to a case like this where they would have to say or hides himself the only difference between else permanent mr hutt is that mr hunt took even less action to conceal is there any problem with this court considering what we wrote and deadly no you are of course there's there's no problem with this court considering it there was no problem on it with the trial court considering it i believe the the problems i believe that the court ha resorting to it in the dictionary definition is a is appropriate in and in lieu of other guidance i don't believe it would be appropriate here i believe it else gives enough guidance to this court on the issue that this court doesn't need to reinvent the wheel is is under my couch i know that they come and they search my house i don't say anything because i don't have to search what doesn't doesn't say that i need to do anything just like in this case except let them except let them in my house and let him into my house if i conceal the information and i know i'm well if they didn't look in the right place your client never let them into his body probably never comply with a search warrant at all due to your i don't know i believe that he did because i don't believe there was any compliance required that's one of them i don't believe that there was clarify what these the terms mean i don't believe that that was the type of i believe that it's i believe that the dick the dictionary definitions are one of many things that the court can rely on for two to apply to the i'm sorry i know you want to jump in here as well evidence which is a felony requires more requires heightened and therefore words must be construed more narrowly and more against the state and and less in favor of criminal is ation and so when there's already case law on concealment of evidence relating to a criminal investigation or prosecution or construction of the room floor of the code is consistent with the holding you know every so we're talking about concealment  fry the supreme court held the defense made a valid jury waver considering facts and circumstances similar to those here together with the fact that as here defendant silently acquiesced in the trial court's statement in his presence on the day of trial that all counts were set for a bench trial now countries who who counsels argument the supreme court who put in friday does not require some affirmative statement by defen attorney in his presence that the defendant wishes not to exercise his right to a jury trial and instead chooses a bench trial contrary to defendant and the court and roberts which mistakenly believed that such a requirement was imposed and fry helplessness in which the supreme court ruled that a half sheet in the common law a record bearing the stamp legend jury waived was insufficient to sever savella dri waiver unlike in smith here defendant was present in court this extensive criminal record which included convictions for felonies in a dui or showed his familiarity with his right to a jury trial and the consequences of waiting that right is extended term sentencing argument showed his intelligence and evidence relevant to the charge in the dui case was relevant to the charge in the four or five obstruction case as to which depended had waived his right to the jury trial  valid jury waiver in the dui case the record does not support contentions that defense counsel misinterpreted misrepresented to the court the defendant had waived history a trial right in seventeen he won the dui case or the defendant asserted that he wanted a jury trial in that case instead of photos that the jury waiver that counsel repeatedly stated defendant had made was the one that he clearly made on october t and fifty two and forty five cases it was that jury waiver the defendant insisted that he had not made and as to which he objected on the grounds that contrary to the admon that he was given before he made that waiver he was not extended term eligible his argument with which defense counsel at one point agreed was that he was not extended term eligible on the felony charges on which he waived his jury and fifty two and four i have nothing in the record shows the defendant wanted a jury trial in the dui case nothing in the record shows that absent defense counsel's representations would not have argument by failing to object the trial raise the issue and post from motion senate does not assert plain error this court should honor his forfeiture but if this court ups to review the issue despite his pitcher it should find that the record shows have nothing to add to the court's discussion explored although some important issues relating to that issue was heard as questions about that move on to just say that as the issue three of course the supreme court in berge held that the restitution motor in that case was clear error because it had no actual basis in the trial or sensing evidence but rather was simply cleared by the prosecutor and accepted by the sense in court and based on his prior decision and lewis the supreme court in birch ruled that the lack of sufficient evidence to support restitution order a nd prong plan or so the supreme court's decision in birds says nothing about the sufficiency of arrests to sion orders direction of our restitution is to be paid that the restitution orders here stated only that bridgeman the owner of the damaged truck was to be consistent with lewis on which the supreme court of birds replied that sufficient evidence to support for a restitution order may be provided by the party stipulation supreme court and lewis held that the eviden y basis for a street value fine may be provided by stipulation to the current value and berge the trial court simply accepted the prosecutor's declaration of the amount of restitution which the supreme court found to be insufficient to provide an evidentiary basis for the restitution of here unlike an urge both the prosecutor and defense counsel agreed with the proposed rest to sion or unlike in bird here the prosecutor did not simply declare restitution amount instead the prosecutor and defense counsel agreed that if it was to pay total rest to sion of ten thousand one hundred and seventy five dollars ninety cents that's this thing of two hundred and fifty dollars insurance restitution order the parties stipulate that it had a sufficient evidence for a basis which was reflected by the order itself which specified and broke down the restitution amount and listed an insurance claim number screen court's decision in lewis on which the supreme court relied in urge the statutory requirement that the court assess the amount of restitution just like the statutory requirement that the court determined the amount of  street value fine may be satisfied by its acceptance of the party stipulation the court did not commit any error in doing and here the supreme court's decision and birch that a lack of sufficient  c on the charge of obstructing justice you're no doubt this is issued to you're no doubt the mill you're with the language of the statute and referring to section thirty one dollars for a one it's that  destroys alters disguises physical evidence plants false evidence or versus boston so you take out conceal and looking at the statute with any of the facts here in case would you agree with the resisting charge we're talking about the preventing of disclosure and trying to find language resist or obstruct the performance by that that really if you as to whether the resisting i'm sorry looking at the language of the resistance statute and not language it seems to be the legislature was trying to prevent the preventing of disclosure overlap would not be would not be a reason to find that there wasn't sufficient evidence here the defendant didn't commit obstructing justice here i do believe that the court in bass best kerrville addressed the statutes the resisting are striking a peace officer stance who talks about knowing resisting obstructing the performance by one known to be the person to be known by the defendant the person to be a peace officer and of course the  i'm sorry i was just going to say could i just make the point about act that act as not have to be a physical act and that's well known it's defined in the criminal code so whether or not it's an defendant's failure to submit to the officers lawful request to comply with a lawful search warrant in the statute and hacky be an omission correct your honor same point of you know the fact that there is an act in one that the statute in the obstruction of justice statute this is a political issue an act still means that this conduct would be covered because an ask can be a refusal to act and that's what we have here it makes conceptual sense that the law may criminalize a failure to take an action as a misdemeanor but if we're going to make something a felony and require something a little more furtive something a little more culpable than just sitting back keep your mouth closed to particular counts but there was a waiver on that entire case in this case no waiver was ever given on seven hundred and fifty one and in fact the date on which the the court believed that a waiver was given the case was an even call t call to other cases and did not all seventeen d t fifty one that's i mean if you have a transcript and that records for that case so that i believe that that is a big distinction between fries at least a waiver was entered webster's dictionary the law defining zeal to prevent disclosure or failure to disclose is especially in violation of a duty to disclose so assuming that there's a duty to comply with a search  now so i have your time's expired but i have a question yes or no would the police then be required to know ahead of time or would public policy require how do we know this dui isn't a felony you make out like well it's all it's just a misdemeanor but we see more and more often in illinois that these are offenses that call for mandatory prison time because it's a repeat do you and then if the early dui was one where you left the scene also as a result of personal injury accident those kinds of factors are not necessarily known to the officer that's serving at war so saying well this would be more if you file one charge i would be more equivalent to the misdemeanor not the prosecutor makes that the cold light monday morning and makes a decision where the charges is a misdemeanor or felony but we should not assume that this would have been a felony in lieu of any particular