was convicted of a jury trial first degree murder and attempted armed robbery just pedley was a trial judge chester slaughter was the trial attorney the sensors forty two years for merck and ten years consecutive for attempted armed robbery i did the first appeal also on and the first to take in the first appear as if the defendant's conviction for a this since since since that has been reverse that we're talking about the sufficiency of the evidence so isn't the confession sufficient enough for the very conviction when over there socialize that's for the jury to parcel out is it so my question is is have please the court i'm assisting state's attorney jeff allen and behalf the people of state of illinois we ask this court to affirm for the third time the murder conviction of an art rock in this court got it right in the crockett two decision that in sending the case back to the trial court initially for re sentencing and the mandate that was sent to next trial court limited  counsel could raise on his appeal because it limits the jurisdiction of what can be considered by the score housel could have raised it in his initial appeal and attack on the proof of the murder itself but he chose not to illinois court starting with our team going all the way down here frowned upon taking a second bite of the appellate out allowing him to fed to raise this now in his second direct appeal is doing just that allowing him to senate backed out of the trial where for every sentence it recessing happened and then on the second appeal the second direct appeal the defense for the first time attacked the sentence on the air robert and this court said no no no you trial court level but in a palette for a waiver by not raising it in your first appeal you have wait let me ask you this what if circumstances change though and i think i think this would just as one of just scored points that well you know there's a confession that says well i tended to commit an armed robbery and so dorry says that's a door he says well you know i'm not going to raise fish is the evidence because it's pretty clear that this was a felony murder  felony murder that general voted for and it was not objected to would have answered that question front and that direct appeal and that they would have assumed that once the felony murder conviction the underlying felony conviction for verdict was the intentional murder in this case and it would have been answered and it would have prevented this second bite at the apple but instead only the purpose to rectify it as to the attempt on robert was presented to this court and are first argument is that it's not probably before the sport but if this court wants to look at the underlying proof for the remaining murder house let's look bad because in this case the proof of murder with or without telling where is overwhelm this court is well aware of the law of accountability which states that either a person is legally responsible for another person's actions when either before or during the commission of the offense and with the that all me rephrase that will provide a standard of review to the confession that in view of the evidence in the right most favorable to the state you don't throw it out you look at the confession is it that was what happened and crockett participated and there's the planning in the commission he was involved before and during this event he picked day the tuesday aging really twentieth when they would to do do this robbery and his girlfriend in the sure that the gun was working he got a gun they weren't there under those rules to get in there and in all they happen and well risk plain and well the defendant did after this murder you could even say that the intent was the killer all along when you look at the fact that the plan was to get her down the basement to prove it and just this is the state did prove it and the jury was properly instructed and the jury properly found bernard crockett guilty of the first degree murder of jasmine robinson so well based on cases that i've seen only deal with the trial level and the post trial level issue of waiver and that seen a case that this once you had an appeal and didn't raise it that you have another opportunity to raise it do you have a case that says that i make it that think that's the way justice voidness reading king and i don't read it that way indeed i see no such case so it