a handgun they never saw him attempt to the starting gun and they never saw him a handgun fall from this person although there were fingerprints analysis conducted the fingerprint laos is insufficient to not  insufficient evidence to establish where they got me from this was a high crime neighborhood with a recent amount of with a large amount of recent shootings and the yard was accessible to the public in this high crime neighborhood so there was insufficient evidence to establish where would seem to me would be the same would have to be the same in both of you because you're asking the jury to consider the circumstances and their common experience in regards to second one really doesn't make much sense so that's your contention yes rather that here the state was unable to prove prove exclusive no i think we're not we're talking about the one in for what reasonable laying in plain view of the state didn't posit that that was a fact they asked the question of the fury doesn't the fact that it's a question implied stage ships actually asked them to use their own common sense and experiences in life other instruction maybe as well as looking at the circumstantial evidence of the case other instructor so they didn't make state they asked the question your  that the next sentence that the state's attorney does tell the jury or comments to the jury is she does make a statement says no people do not leave the effect of binding the back yard of put put it into context isn't that know you're on a given the circumstances here are there but they have to it stablished exclusive immediate control of the end of the area with a handgun is found and the only evidence here is essentially that hangs on his found two to three feet from taiwan he a comment as to the term of issue there which was whether the defendant had knowledge of the gun during their closing arguments and because it wants to determine to the issue of the case of knowledge of the comments of the state's attorney if here it substantially prejudiced taiwan and for those reasons he should be afforded new trial counsel in regards to possession again if it doesn't seem that the there's a case that you found there would been the possessor of the of the gun but here you only have the right there's no one else around correct your honor these are two different circumstances then right and and right there the defendant fell on top of the gun and or he was a gun was found in his torso interest from his hands here we have the gun found two to three feet from taipei taiwan and while we don't have other individuals as was the case and right we have this evidence that was presented by the state that this was a high crime neighborhood and certainly that's how i wanted not have exclusive immediate control of this backyard that was open accessible to the public where there had been a large amount of recent shootings so it is different right that there's still the state was still not able to prove that exclusive and immediate control of the area where that gun was found and know the police officers ever saw taiwan possess the gun they never saw a drop from his person of his face in june twenty fourth now so they see this guy running he's holding their front of the shorts as he runs and then trips over a woodpile and his arms splayed out in front of him and then two to three feet directly in front of that the handgun is found you're saying that the jury is not allowed to sit or all of that other circumstantial evidence they can only look at the fact from the police who only announced her office as they started to run after taiwan and when he's confronted with the fact that he's going to be charged with gun violence his response wasn't but i didn't have a gun his response was facts that were not present in evidence taiwan was substantially prejudiced because they didn't have overwhelming evidence against taiwan and that's the people who own guns yes yes your honor and it went to the tied he didn't have any say in what legislature had already determined that fifteen year minimum was the amount necessary to charge a young youthful offender like taiwan who had only been eighteen for less than two weeks he had been eighteen for twelve was the first district and there they found that a the constitutional rights of an eighteen year old eighteen year old three months was violated to find the logic of miller and because he was still circumstantial he posits a hypothyroid reasonal when he calls it well essentially what is a reasonable hypothesis of innocence which is that the gun might have been already been on the ground at the point at the spot where the defendant trip during the but pursuit however evidence being circumstantial and the existence of a reasonable hypothesis of innocence are not grounds for reversing the judgment and said the crew has to be foot pursuit whereas the cell phone the aisle there which was in the pocket and the drives which would weigh less than a cellphone are in the pocket so there would not necessarily be a need for deliver and of course possession of lapin is one of those additional factors that is the minimum of venture a threshold and here i believe there was also a and witness who testified as an expert and gave an opinion on the simply unlawful possession and so therefore the greater charge of armed violence does not have the element of fun lot of intensity of liver and therefore the unlawful possession of a controlled substance with intent of the liver cocaine is not an element of our violence charge with respect to the at the inference as this court has to accept all reasonable inferences in favor the prosecution and has to view the evidence of the light most favorable to the prosecution and so that the defense theory that that he could have been running in this manner in order to to hold on to a cell phone that passed that can only be accepted if that's the only reasonable inference that can be drawn from the evidence and here that's not the only recent inference and so therefore this court does not have to accept that phrase even though the trip the officers testimony about it being an unusual manner was the objection was sustained this court can still view that not and i also argue this is a matter of common knowledge and common experience rather than having to rely on testimony to establish that this was in fact an unusual manner of running the location the gun is the extremely important because it was right in front of where the defendant trip so it was in line with his momentum but also this case assuming from cases like right because here there's also additional evidence what's not in the house i men being pursued in a house and in here there's also evidence of tacit admission switches very key as well because when the police question made several questions defended didn't either didn't respond it was silen which can be considered under the hard case because if you are otherwise answering other questions and your silence is not indication of your right to remain silence the fact that you failed to answer certain questions and then provide a non response like i wasn't hurting control over the stranger's backyard where he was in order to have proof of possession it's not a constructive possession case with respect to their claim under the the jackson case cited with that was in jackson it was in the firm a new misstatement of facts and and here that's different then than making appeals to common sense and experience which is more like to run the case and also parts allows evidence of the defendant's failure respond to some questions and therefore that evidence can be properly commented on in closing argument and there's no clear obvious error with respect to the claim that the prosecutor improperly commented on this kind of silence with respect to mandatory minimum sentence it's not a case like house with a life sentence this is fifteen year minimum especially this being raised on first time on appeal on the basis of science of juvenile development there's no evidence like mickey points out there's no evidence of that in the record in that's before the circuit court and instead of the defendant here actually admitted that the fifteen year sentence was appropriate so that's invited last thing i'd like to mention is about the drug treatment assessment it was imposed at two thousand dollars and the first to cease position is that it should have been three thousand dollars now we are not arguing that this court should or can raise the assessment but simply convicted of a violation of this act right shall be assessed and then it gives the scale so it doesn't have to be a conviction under the controlled substances that isn't that what we're locking out isn't that what we want to do well the state's position is that the intent of this and especially the language which refers to more than one offense in the indictment or information it applies to all charges that he might be convicted to in that same indictment or information and even if it were limited to offenses of that section for eleven point two g if that were limited to only offenses under the controlled substances act the predicate for the armed violence charge w a violation of the controlled substances act therefore the intent of the arm balance statute is to enhance the penalty for violations of other felony and here the other felony was predicate for armed violence both the criminal code and the only instrument controlled substance act the fact that the defendant violates only controlled substances back while armed with a firearm does not mean that he's no longer in violation of the only controlled substances act what the they armed with a related to armed violence so from oh yes it said section thirty three dash thirty three capital a you may hear good arguments but the refused the defendant's request the climate fence request to reduce the pain only even further below the statutory met minimum requirement is it has to be three thousand the g p only got two thousand so it has to be three thousand then should decline to reduce that even further because it should have been three thousand in the first place so this would have to just leave it in two thousand because he cannot increase it further but i guess i'm trying to understand the idea of the planet he is is is there and there is no ambiguity as challenges cannot be raised for the first time of appeal of the illinois supreme court people versus folman twenty seventeen address for the first time one of the deal and as applied constitutional challenge that was raised there so and as by constitutional miller state versus lyell in twenty fourteen there was a ten year mandatory minimum and they found fine a simple logical in miller where it states that youthful offenders or juveniles youthful offenders