clerk please call the next case would cancels who are going to orally argue please approach the podium and introduce yourselves morning your honor is my name is mary had singular i mean assistant state's attorney representing the people of the state of illinois good morning my name is levi harris and i am an assistant appellate defender representing mystery's life very good are raising and the way that we're framing it in this case was not at issue engram so for instance there you had to enhancements that began with the move from class three to  two and then also there was an additional class x and the defendant as far as i know did not make the argument that we're making that there was that there was a problem in the initial in the initial  twice once to elevate his offense from a misdemeanor to a felony and again to elevate the offense from a class three to a quest to now the state in its brief agreed that this was a double enhancement and so the issue between t honor is from the misdemeanor to a felony a second u w by a felony which didn't take place but yeah there's our position is that you don't even necessarily need to reset if we're still at the point were we considered that there was a double enhanced but here that basically they prior u w s used as an element in the offense and then it was also used to move the the punishment the classification of the offense from a class three to a class two and as i say that the state basically conceded this point in its brief and that the only argument was whether the general assembly had explicitly allowed the stolen hands meant to take place besides the fact that they were you are you want to live and there define briefing on that because both parties to this point have proceeded on the assumption that this is a double enhancement case so that's based on a misreading of palau that there's only a single enhanced but well again i know how the mystery palls and if you're in it reading provide that you know in response to their briefs if you all were amenable to that third and with no disrespect to to the honor of pal i think there are the honor about to the to the justice who the two things are  four one point one he just said dressing the forcible felony trigger to get from class three to class two whereas here we're not talking about that we're talking about what is essentially a recidivism provision at the beginning of twenty four one point one he but besides that you can even lay aside the distinguishing characteristics and again with respect you know we would argue that power was it incorrectly  decided that this was an incorrect interpretation of the stance you the first sentence of the stance you specifically twenty four one point one  sort of a universal provision that applies to you know if if the person is convicted of you w by a felony it's a class three felony not this and there's this other staying or if there's nothing th you know that is a factor that's missing and plaster felt this would seem to cry across the board then you start taking off but if there's this additional factor it's a class two felony if there's this factor it's a class two felony so we believe that  forcible felony so that there are all these different i mean it in your honor you're the one who wrote it but my understanding of how would seem to be that there's only one step from from mr meter straight to whichever class of  i would read those two to come up with several different versions of u w by film version that would be different sentencing versions that's correct based on the same physical act of carrying a gun in your pocket in this case yes yes you're right that's what it means i don't know if i would use the word wrong i just think it's it's complicated and this would be the first time that now all the sudden we've got multiple different kinds of heat of you by a felon that that i don't know that the general assembly intended when it did this  first part of that section it's clearly says any second or subsequent violation should be close to falling clearly right yes so there's no kind of suggest they're allowing for they don't want to and i mean we know that so you get one free what i do believe is that this this statute it is clear that the legislature intended to punish people who have prior u w by felon however it is not explicit in the statute th intended to do so if that value w by felon is the the only felony ok so you know we make the arguments in our briefs that these are analogous to other more general  recidivism provisions you know the class x provision the extended term provision nothing in those statutes is any less clear what it says if a defendant you know who's been convicted of two or been a use of this prior felony as an element of an offense and then there's a use of it to move from a class three took less two but even those are different are they not just looking at the stitch again based on your argument a for all other you know not mentioned above it's class three that would make more sense than beginning with this universal provision one who's confused by using mister easily was confused when he put the gun to his pocket  single enhancement case which again this would this would be the first time that's been dealt that with that way by the parties we still didn't have the notice that's required by the court of criminal procedure which says you have to set out that you intend to seek an enhancement on the basis for that enhanced but in the charge so that everybody knows up front for the entire proceeding you know what basis we're proceeding on if i'm going to plead one of my facing do i want to waive a jury trial all these things exception to the prohibition against double enhancement and that occurs when the legislature clearly intends to enhance the penalty based upon sign aspect of the crime in the intention is clearly express section twenty three gas one point one he it cannot be any more clear what this statute is unlawful use of possession by a fallon the first time your class three you do this again it doesn't say but there is no confusion and any subsequent or second or subsequent violation shall be a class two felony for which the person shall be sentenced to a term between three and fourteen years the defendant was put on notice that the state was going under this statute twenty four dash one point one because it was clearly stated in the indictment and they clearly referred to the prior you you do you f the intention of the legislature is clear they don't want pry off balance to be running around the city w the defendant did it once in two thousand and six he was sent to the penitentiary he comes out of the penitentiary and if memory if my memory serves me within several months he's caught again with a weapon on the street not only isn't a pocket there was testimony that special penalty range established by the legislature he could not be more clear and as defense counsel is already alluded to people versus powell is a great case a great decision justice interpretation of the statute just clear defense counsel wants the silver legislator to turn around and bring up the class two first and then put the three that doesn't make any sense the legislature said ok i won't need that long school quick points of football counsel said that you know the legislature does not want people to be running around with guns and believe that  probably all of our positions that we share that but the fact that they intended to punish the use of guns are the possession of guns by felons does not mean that the standard is clear that they intend to do so by using prior  felon twice once as an element of defense and again for enhanced but i'm still unclear on what what the state's position is whether this is a single enhancement or a double enhance pal there was one enhanced when there was a move from misdemeanor to class two felony and under one eleven three c the state was required not only to put what the prior felony was but to save the state intense to seek an enhanced term so whether you know whether well the defendant knew and when he knew it is not the issue was the issue is whether the state complied with the notice requirement and there are no further questions