thirty four so the defendant admitted for violating his probation by committing the offense what's it matter what happened in regards to the conviction he's already admitted to having committed the offense as alleged in the petition you outright or whether this should be remanded for a new revocation hearing now the state has incredible discovery discretion in how to proceed and how to present its cases here the state chose to proceed by stipulation to the fact that mr anderson was convicted acquittal or a new trial and also filed a notice of appeal which this court heard and reversed his conviction so that conviction mr anderson did not admit to committing the offense he merely convicted to the fact he was convicted by a jury in that case so here the state made a deliberate choice to use the fact that mr anderson was convicted the fact that the revocation hearing came after the conviction also speaks volumes it's not that mr deliver choice to seek replication of mr anderson's probation by stipulation so the fact conviction after he was found guilty by a jury and that was the only basis on which to revoke the only basis that the state revocation of his probation was on that conviction now this court should reverse mr anderson's orders of provocation outright and that is supported by remains however it said accordingly the porter revoking probation is reversed and the cause remanded for an evidence you're hearing on the petition to revoke to determine whether the facts support the charges they're in set forth and whether the probation should or should not be revoked there was a different  and the court in people versus seventy on a supreme court case i sent it back so that the circuit court could be evaluate the petition to revoke based on those other cases of predication not on conviction record that are supported by the record and in holdings within their own i'd like to point to the finance brief on paper for the bottom paragraph it states the basis of the revocation was the andersons aggravated battery so that being said on the next page as you stated september twelfth two thousand and twelve the defendant committed the offense of aggravated battery in a public place as alleged in mclean county two thousand and twelve c f ninety four there was a jury trial and the jury found me guilty for the down there it says defense counsel counsel acknowledged that the state's allegations were true so again they admitted that it violated his probation and the probation was properly revoked in our brief we did argue that it should be reversed for a new evidence hearing that after hearing your honour's statements today we will rest on our brief so much honors make a that the state would be able to produce witnesses the stablish going back why is it that you're arguing the conviction in the other the underlying case has anything to do with probation revocation when the probation revocation was confined to the defendant's admission people committed the offense well your honor after having after having been convicted by a jury according to the any of the facts underlying even what the jury found it was an admission to the fact he was convicted by a jury that is why that was spread of pressure had he been had he been admitting to the conduct or to the fact that he committed the offense it would have been no reason to include the fact that he had been committed already a big the fictive by a jury in the other case however the state put that on the record twice both in eleven c f five one or and eleven see an eleven thirty four because that was what probation based on both allegations and the petition to revoke then the reversal of the underlying conviction would still required the court to reverse the order of probation and remanded for a new revocation hearing so that