position is in the four issues that are raised in this case so in our first argument we believe the aren't a visual conviction has to be reversed outright because it's predicated on a constitutionally invalid  mean a conviction is based on a nation on constitutional statute or brief largely focused on the difference between artificial criminal and unlawful use of special weapon by a felon but as the court is now aware this past thursday illinois supreme court cited in re n g which substantially strengthened our argument by overruling people versus the fadden and under n g the constitutionally invalid conviction can't use for any reason i under any only supreme court decision people vs araa i believe there's a rehearing petition pending in that case but assuming the decision stays as it is this court would not have jurisdiction to vacate the clerk imposed fines but it still can and should apply the one hundred thirty dollars increase sentence credit against the army from us so with the rest of my time i'm planning to discuss the first two issues raised in the briefs though i am of course happy montgomery in seattle and that analysis is that when you have facial in constitutional criminal statute what it's doing is creating an offense that's beyond the power of the state so under for that reason the evidence was insufficient to support a conviction for that offense because there was no other qualifying conviction that was presented at trial so the art of it will conviction should be that uses the canvas conviction we argue that should be reversed because of the two separate instructional errors relates to the jury's use of stipulation about mr q that's criminal history of the party stipulated that he had two qualifying kitchen of the artificial criminal statute and there are two distinct they're related but they're distinct errors the first one is right after that stipulation t instructed the jury consider it quote along with all the other evidence in the case and quote second error was that the trial court failed to give a limiting instruction on how the jury could use the stipulation either at all the evidence in the case and since the jury could only consider that stipulation for the limited purpose of the citing whether mr that all had time to be to a criminal that essentially communicated to the jury that it was to just when he was arrested there is no evidence there wasn't in the state's case that mr about was aware that any canvas was in fact in the bathroom it wasn't visible there was no forensic evidence tying him to what was found seem possibly inconsistent with what was found in the bathroom because we had two baggies one of them was substantially larger than the other i also know that there are indications the record that the jury struggle to convict on both charges in fact but a sort of cannabis charge goes at one point seven zero to the court and it said you know can we still convict him even if we think he didn't know the marijuana was there if we believe he intended  of the court has enough for the questions we would ask it's reverse the artificial conviction outright and to reverse the reman only store that we relied upon as saying that you can use the prior conviction and they do they just well i can argue with the supreme court's decision four days ago i only at the defense request so the trial course decision to just not give the instruction is correct that the instruction given you have entered for the fed has conviction and you can consider that is was not under any obligation to give a limiting it struck saying it could be only used as proof of the prior conviction which will sense how did how did this instruction actually rea isn't a situation where the defendant is sighing that this isn't a case where the defendant necessarily has to suggest that the truck work was required to have another instruction but  argue that the instruction that was given by the trial court was inaccurate as a matter of law because the jury could only consider at her limited purpose but yet was instructed  since consider for any problems i think that the instruction given with threats that the that there is unless you're going to create a rule that says that you have to give is this is just ordinary evidence like anything else think about it for whatever value it's worth three with case law says is that when you have evidence of othe crimes that raises a natural propensity it's an effect it's a relative it's but the problem is that it's basically to relevance that we're worried that juries are going to work that way too much weight and so they actually are not allowed to draw that inference in general and they're sure to types of cases where they are such as sexual assault cases this is not want to i don't remember i'm sorry for interrupting i don't remember if there was a source for this particular structure is the one walking it is ladies and gentlemen you should consider this along with all the other evidence in this case this is following the reading of the stipulation right of the trial court get that like i don't know the answer to that your honor i don't i don't believe that that was discussed ahead of time i think that the trial judge was just trying to explain to the jury what was going on  stipulation but because the need for the stipulation it turns out be problematic  spencer when you have a unitary trial in other words when you're trying sort of the underlying conduct at the same time as the defense criminal history instead of splitting that out which we do not do in illinois then there is an affirmative duty a suicide a duty to instruct the jury as to the limited use it can make of the defendant's criminal history and if you don't do that that's a due process violation even if the defense doesn't ask to be raised instructions conference at which point the defendant can affirmatively waive his right to the instruction or ask for the limited struction but the point is that this wasn't raised at all and that's important because what spencer says is that having this unitary proceeding it isn't inherently prejudicial there is something prejudicial about having the jury decide the underlying facts the case same time the jury learns that the defendant is  prejudice you know maybe there's some lingering prejudice just because the jury heard it but all the due process requires is the linear structure but we didn't have that we didn't have that critical protection which is what the supreme court in spencer said was why the texas procedure in that case which is similar to one or procedure which will criminal was constitutional