far as this argument is concerned the defendant was arrested on an unrelated charge and on his possession he had a gun and he had drugs but only a bench trial he was convicted of armed violence unlawful possession of a weapon by a some a case in which it was stated that were multiple charges rise of the same act the defendant can be convicted and sentenced only on the most serious charge i'm sure in the cases that have followed king it has been set forth that there is a two step analysis to be under taken the first is now ask the question as to whether or not there were multiple acts and all if no then multiple convictions on problem if yes it goes to the next step and question is is this a lesser included offense on other if yes then local convictions again are improper if no then multiple convictions are ok the second district in one thousand nine hundred nine issued an opinion and people versus williams and is the most case for the situation we're discussing here in rulings the courts noted again they were dealing with armed violence they were dealing with unlawful possession of a controlled substance and the court stated that the common act is  except for certain offenses and particularly those which involve possession of a gun is an element of the buttons in the room scored stated that there is no separate act and in a sense what that reflects is that  possession of drugs doesn't qualify as armed violence possession of a weapon doesn't qualify as armed violence it's only one would assume are committed together and it is in perth for that reason that we seek to distinguish the case of people versus white fourth district case from sioux thousand which reached the opposite conclusion but part of the difficulty there is that in in that instance it was a huge it is these two offenses together the question we're dealing with here and the way we look at it is that which is required by no war and rodriguez is that first you look to see whether there was a separate act and you're looking from i'm violence to unlawful exercise of attaining as they were the state but again those two acts have to be won or on the violence to to come into play i would also note that there is a rather shaky foundation on which assault upon the same victim in an episode in which there was no break there was no diversion from what was happening so while white found that the fact that the position was common to both was not  reliance on these cases distinguishes it from the instant case in which there was simply one act and that was the possession of a gun why also noted that there was a status to be had that the status of being it is is just that it's a stance rooms makes it clear that status is not an act and that again conforms with rodriguez and or and he which states that an act is an outward work over manifestation it is an act and it's a fairly simple usage of the term in the appropriate use of the term to rely upon one would require that this or consider the defendant's status as a felon to have been an act that combines with his possession of a gun to distinguish this from armed violence is central to the difficulty with white by reversing below her and merging these two offenses together violence and the separate felony murder or in this case unlawful possession of a weapon by a felon where a separate colony has is committed we believe that it's more appropriate for this court to treat the the conviction of unlawful possession of a weapon by a felon as the trial court treated the underlying possession of the local possession of a controlled substance that being that it was  from one another and so to that extent the argument is that the unlawful possession of a controlled substance is not a separate act whereas white with hold that it's a separate act and i suppose what i mean is for white to be consistent in its an time before he was unconscious and placed in the room for another it was later after he was to be transported to the jail that a different officer came and did a more thorough pat down a of the defense that was raised was that the defendant had found the drugs there and so it was a separate incident and and the court implicitly rejected that claim and determined that it had to have been on his as to how and they began less than a week ago i believe as to certain issues that he wanted raised and we had discussed that i was not going to be supplementing the argument  judgments stemming from a single physical act and to determine this as counsel said we can refer to and we know that the court must determine whether defendant's conduct involved multiple acts or single act that he's first in this case we see it multiple actions that occurred and defendant was charged at proof with possession of a controlled substance possession of a firearm by felon and armed violence on violence possession of the gun paula fine as a single act and white has explained that simultaneously having drugs in a gun or hurt any act that that it considers it in two acts latin white focuses on elements of the charge the fact that there are two elements that are not the same as the on violence charge when we look at what it both convictions could stand for the unlawful possession of a firearm in the position of the  so it is just possession of a firearm or just possession of a controlled substance and then that would be considered a lesser included charge because that one that's match up in the difference in this example is simply because he was charged well and co acts he has an attempted burglary conviction on his record at the time of the guy and then that a controlled substance being found on him he was a convicted felon and so because we have a completely different infraction there wasn't a convicted felon and then he would have been charged differently we wouldn't and i want to convict him on that particular charge the felony status has nothing to do with armed violence you don't have to be convicted felon to be found guilty of armed island that multiple convictions and concurrent sentences should be permitted in cases where the defendant has committed several acts despite in a relationship with those acts that actual gun is the interrelated act but we still more apt to this case and the fact that he has also controlled substance on whom i believe that's the way the legislature intended it to be interpreted but that by all means if they defend that has both this felony conviction on his record and it's on and possession of a firearm it could be interpreted as also armed violence but and if he's were very clear on the fact that he has a controlled substance he is a convicted felon and he also has a session of a firearm felt like i was back in geometry class in junior high and listening to the state i somewhat feel like i'm back to law school and i'm wondering about these hypotheticals and i think that part of the difficulty with white is the extent to which the various statuses implicit in any number of offenses can create a dangerous situation or or a situation that it's extremely confusing so i would start with the status of in visioning somebody who has committed a battery against a senior citizen on housing on the property and looking at the myriad number of ways if white were to be followed that particularly if this person were a convicted felon and used a gun in doing so the number of offenses that could be generated from this one single act and i think that that's the danger that we have i think that in that situation you're dealing with the same status and i think that it's clear that dual convictions for both of those offenses would be prohibited under the one act one crime doctrine and  wouldn't be considered that the fact that he has this problem he says is a separate act in distinguishing two offenses and i see that there is a case that came out about a week ago from the first district that dealt with the white analysis in the williams of those or at least with one of those cases in analyzing the arm to bitch will crumble and i haven't had an opportunity to get into depth with that i'd be happy if the court is interested to supplement the br no separate act that occurred in between armed violence and i'm awful possession of a weapon by all it is simply possession of it if it's simply possession of the gun that is the one act that occurs when looking at