of a weapon by a felon the facts in the case will set forth that mister nelson was found it a home in peoria at seven hundred and ten south blaine street and june the mr nelson and to get to inspect the premises and to recover evidence from the property located at the commonly known address of a one to matthew also in  peoria again certain evidence was procured this time multiple weapons is the record will state the testimony several officers at the jury trial will state that there were weapons found in a duffel bag in the basement of this home mr nelson my client was subsequently taken into custody  on or about july the th of the year two thousand and seventeen and that's when the case you know really started to begins with the issues here whether mr nelson my client properly was waived his right to counsel and proper and was here was he not properly admonished under supreme court rule for a one additionally there's allegations in the brief that the state did not prove its case against mr nelson beyond reasonable doubt we call attention that in the infancy of this case the record will reflect that mr nelson appeared at a bond hearing before the trial judge early on and it came up at that time that again there was that august the th of two thousand and seventeen i believe that i want to represent myself the judge the judge continued it for a week giving mr nelson another chance to the side whether this is what he really wanted to do was to represent himself mr nelson came back in a week he had previously discharged the public defender and he decided that he was going to represent himself and again like i previously stated that's where all the i'm start to unravel here in the st issue that i would like to discuss with the panel here this afternoon is the issue of whether mr nelson my client fire properly was admonished and that was his waiver was it or was it not knowingly willingly and intelligently i believe especially and based on the right case and other matters set forth in the opinion in  choose well you could have knowingly or willingly but not intelligently i think they they all fall into play knowingly willingly and intelligent and in this case the trial judge for two different concepts it is clear in the record is replete with with an analysis and facts and give and take between mr nelson in the court that he had a  rd grader to cation he didn't understand for the court or for the state to argue that this waiver was intelligent it just doesn't fit the facts of the case you have a band with a rd grade education the  that the defendant clearly had a difficult time representing himself but at the time that the trial court gives the defendant permission to proceed pro se  have given the trial court any indication that he lacked the intelligence to proceed believe there was information in pre sentence investigation is it mr nelson had a substance abuse problem i think there are enough avenues here and with the court being able to observe this defendant could the court even though the court could have ordered it and have valuation a psychological a bill they chose not to do it i i just don't believe that the court the trial court it could have gone the extra step you know you know i've been a practitioner thirty eight years i understand these arraignments bond hearings are fast there's multiple big pendants i'm not sure whether this one was on television screen in the client was in custody i don't  know the protocol and peoria county but the issue is you had an individual here with prior issues substance abuse problems rd grade education for the crile court and we don't know why the trial court did not a mohnish is intelligently but they didn't and if the court did not a monish intelligent because it was the trial court did not believe the phrase or the word intelligent is part of the equation then i argue th and but i do believe that the word intelligent is it can't be lumped in with knowingly and the court need to do in masham in the court for whatever reason did not and therefore it's my argument before this court that the managements under for a eighteen were not proper of i did not find any case law that defined the difference between the knowingly and intelligently but the cases that i found with right in that they were listed in my brief they all were that three three worked knowingly intelligently and i understand that but these waiver councils are catch twenty two years for the trial court judges because  the trial court had refused to allow him to represent himself i think you might be hard ewing the opposite that his conviction should be reversed because knowing is intelligent the case out of the nd district where he the the defense he insisted that the defendant have counsel who was a birch a state and because he insisted it was reversed and remanded back to the trial court so i'm aware of the court's position i do understand that it is a catch twenty two dollars i'm not debating that with the court but i'm asking that the court hold that the trial this trial judge or all trial judges to  zero for a one comply with by the trial judge my argument there was certainly a substantial there was an attempt wasn't though the language for one except that leaving out the word intelligently i would say if i believe the judge made an attempt to do that but i again and i'm repeating myself in noisy mirror i do believe that the twelve matthew the only connection that i could see was there was he was tending to a dog i don't believe it was ever established that it was his abode that and i the unlawful use of weapons statute specifically mentions in a boat he may have been there i mean he to he was found there but whether that was where his abode or residence never proven and i think that the charge fails on that point and additionally the connection of the weapons were found in a duffel bag in the basement certainly not within arm's distance or any real realistic distance of mr nelson i don't believe that the element of possession was properly proved but as i set forth in my brief  may have been there is a guest to take care of a dog who knows why those bags were there or whose bags were they just because nelson was there doesn't mean one that it was either in  no no address but there were his pill bottles with his name on it doesn't mean he lived there in my opinion but yes there were pill bottles with his name on it that's correct charged with control possession of a controlled substance so that's not an issue whether they were rightfully on his person but the fact that they were there and he was tending to a dog doesn't mean that it was his home or his abode as set forth by statute at this point you do have five minutes for rebuttal very well thank you thank you your honors the endless anyone else has any other questions or h one that the defendant's waiver of counsel was proper first off i state my brief that not only did the trial judge substantially comply with rule for a one in this case the state would argue that he strictly complied with the rule defendant was clearly made known of the nature of the charges against him the defendant was clearly informed of the possible penalty ranges that he faced on those charges and that the find it was also informed that he had the right to counsel and if he can afford eleven dollars would be provided at no charge to him that was crystal clear laid out by the judge the  defendant indicated that he understood every one of those items there there's really no debate as to whether or not the judge complied with rule for a one day of course there's it's been well settled that that compliance with for a one  a and establishing that the fed understood all those items means that there has been a valid way or a councilman states admits that in this case there has been but even if you look further in the record to to  determine whether or not this this waiver was valid the judge went above and beyond just the substance of for a way that the the judge even informed a defendant that he be up against an experience attorney and he be a disadvantage the friend said he understood that the judge said that he the defendant couldn't proceed with the trial and then complain later that he should have had lawyer the fan and said he understood that  the judge told the defend if you would give me special favors the judge disc talked about his level of education and defended actually decatur he made it to the th grade but didn't graduate so i know and know there's some issue either he had a rd grade education but it clearly appears he made it far in school and is rd grade so the judge really flushed out a lot of different areas to to ensure that defendant knew what he was getting into and made sure that this was defendant's decision  use that transcript to determine that this was an it was an intelligent waiver regardless of whether the court actually used that word and again the states and that's that it was very clear that the defendant's waiver was was  knowing willful and intelligently made he was given all the possible information that the supreme court rules require and again he went above and beyond to make sure that the defendant knew what he was doing and make sure that this is what he wanted to do he knew what the charges he faced the penalties all that i think that that is part of the intelligence that is required by case law so again that the statements that not only the court substantial strictly  to stand it it is correct isn't that the pill containers with his name on it were found in the basement where the duffel bag was correct where the weapons were yes there bullet wound his right foot and they also found a shell casing mare fast for two weeks they get a search warrant so that the residents of a twelve matthew defendant out front then he leaves found the black duffel bag three guns ammunition and they found the pill bottles with defendant's name on it after they tested those those weapons and compared the testing of the weapons to the shell casing found at the scene of the shooting where defendant was shot they were able to i the fact that he is clearly coming and going from this address and that he helped secure the dog there and the fact that he used this gun probably to shoot himself in the foot on accident then where does he go after he does that and the state use the circumstantial evidence tying defendant to this record to this residence in order to to establish that this was his abode for purposes of this this particular charge and the state's mess that you know that the jury was that the tr other than the fact that he is in and out of this residence clothing any any bills or anything with that address in his name on down it seems that that well your honor it was certainly sufficient for the jury the jury heard again they obviously pieced all this together he shot himself with this gun and we're going to bring it to you brought it to the basement i think it's reasonable for a jury to assume or any trier of fact  assume that he brought this gun to stash at the place where he lived and again the fact that pills bought the pill bottles were there this man just shot himself probably in the probably shot in the foot but if there if we have differences and we have three we have a video that  out the address listed on was twelve bottles is that problematic to the six evidence or not i don't think so your honor i went to law school in michigan and i had an illinois license plate on my car i never changed it i had i never changed my address why i had  an apartment for two and a half years everything was still my my illinois information and i clearly lived in michigan so and i think you know using those principles and any rational trier of fact could put themselves in those positions that just because obviously believed that the fact that all these the defendant himself ties all of these places and events together was sufficient and the state's most any rational trier of fact could have found that as well well there was a two week  the shooting in the shot in the foot and his arrest is that right that's correct so so in this two week period when they originally went to that house is because used for the shot was and found in the basement yes at the different residence of the state's position was that defendant shot himself at a different place place where he did not live and then brought the gun back with and put it in the duffel bag with his other g the ability to secure the dog and he could clearly come and go as he pleased and that was more evidence that the house the dog totally secured i don't know the answer to that i don't know remember the answer to that your honor  probably put in a cage or something or a crate i don't i don't know exactly what happened to that and i don't know what so i know that i don't know if i should  after the letter that was written by a family member and the court gave the public defender time to order transcript and that was ordered a bill on or about the th of march and when the when the case came for the argument on the motion on june the th it was opined by this by the public defender initially waived raised the issue of dated well you know i'd reconsider their theory but he did in mid that he never really read the transcripts so i just wanted to express to this court th the for this attorney to with his experience it buys the trial court upon retention that there may be an issue with proper waiver got got a continuance was had the ability in procure the transcript here couple of months then appears on june the th and says well i changed my mind i'm going to be withdrawing that legal theory and by the way i really did look at the transcript i would like to argue to this court as i said th in stand on the brief that that's an effective because if he initially raised the issue he had the transcript in his hands acknowledges he didn't really read it and then withdraw as his theory anyway i believe that to be problematic and he had the time he was given the time by the trial judge to to prepare the transcript to read it in a prude ever reason didn't get to it chose not to do it and instead of asking for another