next case our call this morning is agenda number four it's number one zero five seven five one people of the state of illinois versus maurice ar and power third the doctrine produces confusing results and is not amenable to consistent application for life the doctrine consumes resources that are better spent elsewhere in to exercise their prosecutorial discretion to choose to survive in connection through the years other reasons besides an adverse effect on parole had been advanced to justify they clued that the right act when crime doctrine is required by the united states and the like constitutions that multiple convictions will affect bond that multiple convictions will factor into recidivist statutes interpret that as a couple of questions first aggravated criminal sexual assault is of equal severity defined by the general assembly is clear each has a is a class x crowd we're going the mental state and i think that that mental state for a home invasion and for a residential burglary is intentional conduct but mental state is intent and the the i think the confusion residential burglary but the crime is not home invasion and residential burglary the crowd those are elements of any crime as defined by the general assembly that is everybody criminal sexual on the question of discretion there is no dispute and that when they are or say class crimes at least between between the parties there is no dispute when there is there are convictions on same class crimes and there's no way to tell the difference in terms of spherically but the people do have the discretion to choose on page twelve of the defendant's brief he has conceded but that is so and this court should accept that concession for two reasons first the exercise of prosecutorial discretion in this context is a corollary of the prosecutor i question is whether one of the aggravated criminal sexual assaults is more serious than the other and as i've already set forth our position is may please the court if you're so good morning your honour's my name is kenneth brown and i represent the defendant in this case maurice artists your honors were asking this court in this case to affirm the decision of the third district appellate court that court applied well settled one act one crime principles in reaching its decision in this case now in the appellate court the state did agree that one act one crime principles applied in this case and that therefore one of the defendant's convictions for aggravated criminal sexual assault had to be vacated for the first time on appeal before this court the state is asking this court to abandon the one act one crime rule so we've argued that it's waived but that i'd like to just take a few moments to address that issue before i get to the substance of the merits of the appellate court's decision we have course would ask this court to reject the state's request to be in the one to act one crime rule the rule is well settled precedent the rationale for the rule is that a defendant is prejudiced when he has more than one conviction that is carved from the same physical act the rule goes back more than thirty years in one nine hundred seventy seven when this court decided the king case and it's really really good in the schillinger case which goes back fifty years now the state says that the defendant's parole opportunities but since one thousand seventy eight since m s r came in this court has repeatedly validated the one act one crime rule in one nine hundred ninety five in fact it request to abandon the rule and it clarified a two part test for the one act one crime rule and then as recently as two thousand and four in the harvey case this court held that the one act one crime rule violates it is plain error because it effects the substantial rights of the defendant and that was a decision by justice authored by justice kilbride and in addition since one nine hundred seventy eight this court said that multiple convictions for one act can prejudice a defendant in a future cases far as the setting of bond and in a court's sentencing decisions and in davis this court mentioned that the multiple convictions based on one act can show up in a pre sentence investigation and of course a trial judge then sentencing the defendant in a subsequent case will look at that pre sentence investigation see these numerous convictions and can readily include and properly conclude that a greater sentence should be imposed against the defendant because he has a serious criminal record and then in in w c which was decided in one thousand nine hundred five the juvenile case this court did extend the rule to apply to juvenile jude occasions because it found that multiple since discretionary parole was eliminated and i think this court was right in its conclusions in davis and w c that there are these prejudicial aspects of multiple sexual assault and making a determination of which offense is more serious and which is an offense is less serious under one act one crime principles and that's what the court did here and i think that this court approve the approach of looking at the aggravating factors in a sexual assault offense in the rodriguez ski's i could just talk briefly about the rodriguez case in rodrigues the defendant was charged with multiple counts of aggravated criminal sexual assault four of the counts were based on a home invasion and four of the counts were based on displaying a dangerous weapon the defendant in that case was also charged with a separate count of home invasion and in that case the jury returned with a general verdict finding the defendant guilty of aggravated criminal sexual assault and and a separate further finding him guilty of home invasion and what this court said in rodrigues is that it assumed in a one act one crime analysis that this court said that it assumed that the conviction for aggravated criminal sexual assault the general verdict was based on the more serious offense of displaying a dangerous weapon therefore held that the separate home invasion could stand because it was not a lesser included offense of aggravated criminal sexual assault based on displaying a dangerous weapon so in that case the court this court looked at the anchor beating factor deter to determine which you fence of aggravated criminal sexual assault was more serious and compare them and that's what the appellate court did in this case the computer and the aggravating factor of home invasion to the aggravating factor of residential burglary and determine that home invasion was the greater offense because it was had a greater legislative based on that the parties are really zisha is that are different in most than in most cases normally the state is asking for the conviction to stand on the most serious offense what you say a criminal sexual assault based on home invasion and you would be advocating for the lesser normally that's what happens is their rationale on which which of the convictions should stand that the one that allows for the greatest sentence is the one that should be allowed to stand that is is that the basis for letting the more serious normal i think that is i think this court can look at the legislative classification in the in terms of the class of the offense and then also what the sentencing range it is and so then in this case should we look at what happens what the consequences are of allowing always held that the more serious offense in a one act one crime situation has to be retained in the less serious offense be vacated but we don't have the difference in sentencing on the egg of a criminal sexual the two aggravated criminal sexual assault offenses and you know the state argues that there is some kind of a windfall here because the home invasion you know the defendant and the separate home invasion fifteen years in a separate road residential burglary twelve years but you know we don't see that as a windfall we see it as a one act one crime violation in a conviction in a sentence on an unauthorized conviction and our position would be that this court can we rejected any windfall claim on the part of the state where he'd be key to the less serious offense of second degree murder which happened to have the greater sentence of twenty years compared to the aggravated battery with a firearm conviction the defend got in that case for twenty  years i would like to just briefly address the state's alternative claim that both of the aggravated criminal sexual assault convictions can stand because they did raise that issue in their brief but as we've pointed out in our brief beyond waiver the state should be stopped from raising this claim because you never made the argument well always always conceded that both columns were based on the same act of sexual penetration it did that at the plea hearing at the sentencing and it's appellate court brief and in its position for leave to appeal so they've taken can see inconsistent positions all along and even if this court reached the merits of that issue i think it's clear that it has no merit and it should be rejected this court is consistently held in cases such as cigar and q scott or c a that a defendant can only stand convicted of one count of aggravated criminal sexual assault based on a the fact the matter is that it doesn't make any difference what the aggravating factor is there is still based on the same act of sexual penetration so for all these reasons your honour's we would ask this court to thank you but on page thirty one in thirty two of our brief we list the cases where the appellate court has recognized the discretion given to the prosecution to choose there were overlapping sentence but here the classification is the say and it would be appropriate to uphold to send some courts discretion in that regard so a rule such as that would regarding receipt of a statutes and convictions resulting from more connected to the same transactions count as one as so if there's no no prejudice from multiple convictions as to eligibility for class again prior convictions must be separately brought in to try and arise out of a different series of acts and of course in each of those circumstances may the cries must be committed at separate crime at separate times  of a different series of acts so as to each of those prejudiced will not arise to a defendant and finally as to future impeachment people v montgomery and its progeny provide protection for the defendant so for these unless there are other questions for these reasons we ask that the judgment of the appellate court be reversed thank you thank you both case number one