is whether a person long we convicted under an unconstitutional statute is entitled to a certificate of innocence this is a the current question of statutory construction i think it's a very simple question over revolving of the united states or the state of illinois and then in subsection g three likewise we have the use of the district if it were and it states that petitioner is innocent of the offenses charged in the indictment or information destructive work home and i think any contrary interpretation to the one we have presented to the court violates the traditional canon of construction that you cannot be out language in a statute such as to make other language superfluous and worst states reading would do that here the state's position as well as the trial judge below held that you could only obtain a certificate of innocence in the way based upon actual factual for example if your honor there's another case pending in the illinois supreme court that was just argued several weeks ago probably for which deals with another constitutional challenge to the stalking statute and had it deals with whether a person can be found legally recent case just in may of twenty seventeen people versus resign and that was a case which really dealt with subsection four the runners referring to and that was a situation where the senate actually pled guilty to a murder and then later years later he has now sought a certificate of innocence so i think that is what the legislature was referring to there because otherwise no one would be able to get a certificate of innocence if they were convicted of a crime because they'd always say well you did something for us to charge you but i think of the referring to here and simon case is the perfect example is if you do something voluntarily like plead guilty later then mr simon was released based on investigation by the hook on the state's attorney's office demonstrate why he in fact pled guilty but that i think is an instance of voluntarily bringing about your own conviction homes on that case i believe is entirely in apis it had to do with the fourth amendment the exclusionary rule and a lockstep doctrine i hear we're not dealing with any of those issues we're just dealing with the plain language of the unconstitutional statute remedy that by making their decisions retroactive and i believe that was what the legislature had in mind here was trying to remedy the problem of someone who like my client spent time in prison under second edition those are exclusive you can't have the first and the second one must be the first condition or the second edition under the particulars that you know the language used here is it was pretty clear that you were actually does me be unconstitutional does not mean that the petitioner did not buy her in the conduct of cause or conviction a person who is wrong charged there is not cause is or conviction that's a different situation  that similar to where are you engaged in a well this was a plea a stipulation bench trial and if the court reversed them in the statute would still be in effect a presumably but then the court would be saying there's there's no conviction here therefore we can't have a certificate of innocence because there are there were no you know we've determined that the acts didn't take place because the conviction essentially and so is that it's a showing if you will of you know whether it was found to be unconstitutional so if we're not about invalidating probable cause or when we are stating that we also don't invalidate the acts of the defendant committed despite the fact that the statute w consider any other of the charges that were made and just mess or are we limited in looking at just this one area are we limited to the a u w conviction no i don't believe your limited to u w because a g three is when which talking about even says that we're charged it doesn't as i mentioned earlier doesn't say charge and then later you were convicted of those it's just that you were charged under the indictment or the petitioners innocent of the offenses charged in the indictment or information if you take that languish on its own it doesn't say charged and convicted of those and just as charged those the fact that they were later dismissed voluntarily does not mean that the need he asked that led to those charges are completely gun that she's totally innocent of any acts that ever happened simply because the state person committed and you basically just out there in this context only because again we're dealing with actual innocence where this person did nothing to bring about their conviction and so i this very specific i think this particular stance you place a typical of innocence because this could legally wipes out everything that has to do with your your charges and makes you totally innocent of of any acts related to anything which you were charged with related to the crimes that you for which were brought the petition for your certificate of innocence so i think it's a very limited use just t of bringing the the argument because this is there been a variety of different views and brought in the language of the statute very clearly allows windows to bring a petition for the certificate if  statute is deemed to be unconstitutional so i don't think it's a matter first impression is just an argument that the that may not have been made in the same way in the past but the language is been there for years that and it's in both section just briefly running to your point there is no provided whole language in the certificate has just innocent statute that i can find and in addition i believe the interpretation of the state is directly rebutted by a such section  he spoke of the fact that it only refers to offenses that were charged and she three but in subsection to any it says that the judgment of conviction was reversed or vacated so it has to deal with drop in the only thing we're dealing with mr typical and the reason why i disagree with the state's interpretation is otherwise we would break the legislature's language regarding the unconstitutionality of a statute or the fact that it did not court fairly recently dealt with that exact issue in the case of people versus mostly this was a case falling under their duty don't you statute and there what happened is the court declared certain parts of the statute on casa to show others were not are those you cannot find the defendant then kill the all the lesser because you cannot be convicted at all i'm around constitutional statute either for the greater france or for a lesser so it's spring court mostly which i believe is a twenty fifteen case supposed to directly that