conviction to simple robbery and of twelve years caused tension between three foundational legal principles first a defendant cannot be convicted of an offense if the state fails to prove every elements of that offense beyond a reasonable dou second a defendant cannot be sentenced for an offense for which he was never charged and third in illinois inconsistent verdicts must stand dealing with the first legal principle you quote a principle and this case we have a situation where the state specifically asked the trial court to instruct the jury that it needed to find on a separate verdict form whether mr games or someone for his conduct he was legally responsible was quote armed with a firearm that is an element of the charge of armed robbery with a firearm the only charge that you faced and the jury specifically and unanimously found that that allegation that element was quote not proven therefore mr cain's must have been a if that is how the instructions read when the jury asked specifically they were confused because they were essentially asked to find the firearm aliment twice and so when the jury was sent back the court told them to look at all of the instructions and look at both the verdict forms and they then simultaneously sent back a verdict form that sad that mr gaines was quote guilty of quote armed robbery and then on the second verdict form they simultaneously found that that are not elements of an offense and here that second a verdict form that was submitted was asking the jury to make a specific unanimous finding as to whether an elements of the only charge before it was proven and they specifically found element was not proven and when looking at a situation specifically like this illinois scholar william lafave said that a jury specific finding on an element of the only charge before it specific binding that that element is not proven this case because in read there was a true special iraq atory asking the jury to find whether a firearm was used and didn't read the charge before the jury was a charge of first degree murder and use of a firearm was not specifically an guilty verdict on one charge where there is again a guilty verdict on one charge an innocuous verdict on the other they both must stand what's what's different in this case is there is an inconsistency between a run element finding on one charge so jones says that you have to give basically some sort of a fact to both of these findings and this is a unique situation in illinois again will you a favor address the specific question  jones dealt with a different scenario there were different charges and so that's a distinction and the way to trying to sort of figure out this puzzle where you have an inconsistency on an element of the only charge there is some sort of indication otherwise which makes it unclear here because they specifically found on that second bernick's form that that firearm element when it was isolated by itself was not proved after having found  be elements necessary rob well that's not entirely entirely clear in this case because if they would have again if we assume they're following the instructions the verdict form would have said guilty and not proven and that's their think guilty and proven because they were asked to find that firearm element twice and when that firearm element was isolated they specifically found that it was not proven so again our position would be that in order to give both of those findings some a fact as the jones court requires under the illinois inconsistency rule the only way to see give effect to both findings and future reduce to a conviction on armed robber excus to a conviction on simple robbery which would be a lesser included offense of the charge of armed robbery and then acquittal on the charge of i'm driving with a firearm and that that brings me to one of the other points in the first issue and here we have a situation where mr games will science and says that he was convicted of the charge of armed robbery with a dangerous weapon and the quote court makes clear that it  isn't proper to sentence someone for a conviction of armed robbery with a dangerous weapon when they are charged only with armed robbery with a firearm because i'm bribery is a dangerous weapon is not a lesser included offense of the charge o know that your client was kind of a mole and the other guy was the real bad actor and that while he was accountable for that behavior he's already going to get hammered for the armed robbery why hammer him with beer and hands in other words without even understanding the niceties of all the nuances of the law it's la the people's court which is the state mentions in the time mention says that you're not supposed to speculate exactly but the jury was thinking what you're supposed to do under jones under powell is look at these two burdick's give them both some sort of a fact and the only way to do that is to reduce the charge to simple robbery because you can't just go ahead and shoot the charge of armed robbery with a firearm when the jury specifically found that the firearm element was not proven that would be improperly under jones giving the facts only to the portion of the verdict that's favorable to the state and you can't just ignore the facts you see the first verdict finding that he was guilty of armed robbery and rely only on the second hand  notice of that so that that as in clark would require the court to reduce the charge to simple  defense argument is now that the jury never found that the defendant had a gun and therefore it has reduced to a robbery the problem with that is exactly what you've noticed the judge the arm and the only of armed robbery the jury had to find that there was a gun then you get to the inconsistent question and that's not a verdict for and it's not a verdict  that kind of inconsistent verdict just simply cannot be used to challenge the verdict these were instructions submitted by the state yes they were  arising the a pretty and the same to you have to fuck anything this you have to have a specific finding of beyond a reasonable doubt has anything excess were consider this second question only after you have found the defendant guilty of armed robbery if you do not find him guilty of armed robbery then the the ask question are told he would have to find you the there's only two twenty one years use in title to the state loses because they don't get the full amount that they would should have been given that the defendant below under the drawing here i did want to address that your honor i'm not aware of any page in the record it was not pointed to in the state's brief where the defendant specifically requested this instruction it was something that the state specifically requested and that it is not to be requested at all under the criminal code for the armed robbery charge which specifically makes use of a firearm an element of the offense and under ip eyes it's not an instruction that should be used for th convictions and types of armed robbery which are discussed extensively in the people be quite case and the final point i did want to make is that the state suggests that as it is that mr games got some sort of benefit in the state got some sort of benefit have with with the way the sentencing was entered and the court court makes it clear that you can't have this sort of mix and match ad hoc justice where these specific sentences and convictions don't matter you can't stressed sentence someone for a conviction of armed robbery with a dangerous weapon which is not a lesser included if you're not charged with a crime of armed robbery with a dangerous weapon and so if