and aggravated kidnapping because these two convictions and only both of these convictions accurately reflect the crimes committed by defendant the harm suffered by the victim and the intent of the illinois general assembly to more severely punished defendants who commit multiple criminal crimes during one course of conduct so the question before this court is simply and those occasions where the defendant commits  necessary to sustain two convictions and there is no statutory basis to bar the imposition of either of those convictions whether the interrelationship of those two charges of one another is sufficient to the scope of any theory of law previously embraced by this court indeed defense arguments and the chief authority relied upon below having cage today hodgepodge of analysis none of which directly for example the appellate court referred to the king doctrine of one act one crime analysis but it is clear that it's not merely one act that was committed in this case defendant committed multiple acts against the victim the fended abducted the victim from a public her against her will as the back of a vehicle and transport the victim to his garage he then committed the acts necessary to satisfy the offense of the criminal sexual assault and that he penetrated the victims which aren't  moreover the people are required to prove that the defendant did both of these acts with a temporal relationship with one another in order to sustain a conviction for the aggravated versions of both those are ten offenses the charging instrument in this case demonstrates that the people intended to prove the case based upon each of these acts engaging in the rodriguez is your position this is not so that is correct a double has been as previously articulated by the score relies upon the use of one factor twice a defense counsel characterized this is as vertical enhancement and in has positive that there is a new mutual in hansard theory which should be used here however in this case it's not a matter of mutual unhandsome but bears repeating in this case is that the defendant committed to offenses against the victim he does not simply commit a kidnapping and he does not simply commit a criminal sexual assault he committed both offenses during one course of conduct the victim didn't suffer just a kidnapping she suffered a kidnapping coupled with a sexual assault only general somebody has made clear that they want to stop criminals from taking part in this multiple course of conduct that people versus scott makes that clear in this court affirm scott bit on other grounds but it made clear that the intent to have an aggravated kidnapping is a stop the crude not being before it proceeds to the next step in this case the next step was a criminal sexual assault being in the legislature where is the clear indication of legislative intent t hands while the clear intent of legislature is demonstrated by the planned language of the statute the illinois general assembly has such create statutes that directly target this behavior now in this case there are multiple vehicles through which the general assembly could have done so and they chose to say with the addition of any other felony during the course of that conduct so that's renders this case different than those other instances where the people were forced to plead and prove a case without the express intent of the legislature here the legislature is giving the people the opportunity to plead improve the case is demonstrate that defendants who commit a crime in conjunction with another crime do deserve a more severe punishment in this case that stems from the aggravated versions of both of these it is my understanding that the only counts the indictment which are issue here did discuss just the one count on the record fails to reflect that it was actually successful for penetration of the victim so in that case it would that the criminal sexual assault and the regular kidnapping charges were both knowledge before the beginning of trial so the result of the case the only convictions the different was who stood in jeopardy of was in fact the aggravated versions of both so then it was incumbent upon the trier of fact in this case it was a bench trial to determine whether or not the people successfully established counts one counts two and the people do really see that in counts one and two they do lay out the elements indicating that in order to sustain a conviction for the aggravated versions both offenses people have to require the predicate felonies and it's a shame to the other offenses the alternate theory that has also been posited by courts below and by the defense counsel is that there are somehow a double jeopardy violation because again multiple convictions are being carved from the one serious physical light over the double jeopardy analysis is immaterial where the courts have held that it's the role of the legislature to determine whether or not again punishment is necessary and even if it runs afoul of the double jeopardy principles if there is an express provision and in this case there is based upon the plain language of the statute it would not be rendered constitutionally  reduced the aggravated kidnapping to its lesser form doing so recognizes that you were never the less allowed to use the kidnapping to aggravate the criminal sexual assault so the aggravated version fails to demonstrate why it is any different than turn on any use scrim of sexual assault to aggravated kidnapping to the aggravated version of the offense as such the current remedy is internally inconsistent and fails to provide any sort of meaningful guidance to the circuit court or to the people as they plead and prove these cases quite simply the two convictions for aggravated criminal sexual assault and aggravated kidnapping are the only two convictions which accurately reflect the crimes committed by the defendant he didn't merely commit the simple predicate felonies that issue he engaged in a multiple course of crimes at one time where he did not summarily kidnap the victim and he did not merely criminally sexually assault her and as such is only the imposition of both of those convictions which would adequately reflect those harms as such for those reasons we a clearly articulate and a legal identifiable basis for doing so mcdowell relied upon initially a king one act one crime analysis but then you supply king king it is also again engage in a double enhanced analysis but you're it should not be able to obtain two convictions of aggravated offense offenses based on identical proof from the same set of facts without express legislative intent preventing the type of enhance facts is used twice we're thick on from this mutual or lateral enhancement where it is where is that record rod it's it comes from the case law most of the cases deal with where the trial court decided to follow me there right which was an appellate court case why aren't they wrong in following it in light of the fact that the supreme court has not recognized the lateral enhance stayed on the books for for until the heel legislature deemed on to provide some exceptions to that and there were found in subsection d of armed violence so that's that's a clear indication under that if you  it was that there was secret confinement for secret confinement and she just told a fantastic fantastical story on hers escape the script from three men with were just breezing by three just briefly rogers the court is quick to note that this theory of mutual in hansard is a novel constructs and has no logical underpinnings in any other body of law in fact the predicate felony doctrine which has applied in this case articulated by the appellate courts and scott boyd in pew all recognize the use of a predicate felony to aggravate another felony and then it allows for a conviction on the predicate felony this case is nothing more than an outgrowth of those decisions  can be affirmed on that basis when it comes down to to the mutual enhancement vs double enhancement the concerns raised by vertical enhanced meant are simply not found here and those cases  this court recognizes that the only general assembly has contemplated elevating a punishment but the creation of a new offense based upon any one element in this case that is not what has occurred in a such the the harm caused by the defendant simply isn't present turn event to be the concept of having a lesser included offense it has never been that people's privacy that aggravated kidnapping is a lesser included offense of aggravated criminal sexual assault  argument as articulate by defendant is more properly stated that kidnapping is in his estimation a lesser included of aggravated criminal sexual assault or defendant was not convicted of the offense of kidnapping he was convicted of the offense of aggravated kidnapping and as such you cannot be said that we're both cases are were both charges while they do reference one another neither of those cases represents a lesser included offense defendants request for cross relief stems from a a reasonable doubt claim notably silent from defendant's argument is a recognition of the standard of review which weighs heavily against his his his arguments it also must be noted that a defendant concedes that the impeach me suffered by the victim was on the collateral matter the impeachment was offered in a post trial hearing where the circuit court indulged defense counsel on allowed him to present somebody who indicated that approximately two weeks before  defendant was actually a defendant's neighbor somebody who defend has to come testify on his behalf and who presents an alternate theory indicating that she saw a defendant and an african american female rocking down the street together at no point in time did that person indicate that she identified the victim as that person walking with the defendant defendant's entire theory of the case is that the victim was engaged in prostitution and that the instant case was a deal gone wrong however there is no support for that anywhere aggravated versions of kidnapping and i have read criminal sexual assault thank you