focus on the first issue but of course i will address the issues the court which is on this issue is was convicted of four counts of aggravated unlawful use of a weapon all of which require proof beyond a reasonable doubt that weans was not on his own land in his own abode or fix place of business when possessing a firearm the state's case relied solely on the testimony of sergeant sanchez that he believed some other unnamed officers to determine that weans did not live at the house where this incident occurred so the question in this case becomes whether sanchez's belief about what these other officers may have determined amounts to proof beyond a reasonable doubt  on the record does not reflect that your honor but what was presented at trial is simply that sanchez testified he believed these other officers determined he didn't say how and he said that weans did not make any statements to him personally and he was unaware of any statements that weans made to any other officers and people behave the court considered similar testimony there the defendant was found in an alley behind his detached garage with a gun and the police officer testified that he bought the alley was open to the public record there reversed and found that the police officers testimony about his body simply was not proof beyond a reasonable doubt determinations with respect to the credibility or it's true your honor the trial court does make the determination some credibility but this court does not have to follow those that are unreasonable in light of the the evidence would be the defense witnesses were more credible and that they actually corroborated each other they actually provided details and the state's witness sergeant sanchez there just was no details there's just simply  e sorry the defense witnesses though one of them if not both of them at one time indicated that they changed their testimony after with the wayne williams lived it seems to me that i read that first he trying to figure out the judge did not believe the defense witnesses or he thought that the officer would more credible perhaps he thought that because when the defense when this is testified one of them are the two we tracked that their statement that lived with him at the time of the fence evony gun testified at first that she wasn't sure and then upon further thought she said well i do believe that he lived there at some point prince but she wasn't exactly sure when that doesn't contradict mr billingsley testimony and obviously he lived there so he would be even more credible on that point also the the way that the trial court found that the witnesses  the defense witnesses were contradicting each other actually was untrue that his big problem was that mr raines testified about two porches that there was true porches that the place where he described the layout of the house he found that he was the only witness who testified to that but actually ebony guns testimony also spoke about two porches at his house and in my argument about ineffective assistance of counsel i pointed out that mr wiens testimony was actually correct it did when you pull up on google maps you can see that there actually was two porches and it was just his failure the defense counsel in this case obviously you said you've read the briefs so i don't repeat myself but obviously there was so many instances where he completely failed to act as a true advocate whatsoever i one of those would be his failure to investigate this on and her for several reasons your honor first would be a complete failure to object whatsoever and specially in the face of blatant hearsay violations  a complete failure to protect his client's right to confront the witnesses against him when sergeant sanchez testified about these other unnamed officers here say my client never had the opportunity to confront these other unnamed aggravating factor that was material to two of the counts ending against my client the other one where mr wain's lives affects every single count against him yes your honor i did mine because the air were so egregious and that affects every single count pending against my client and the evidence then relied upon was so unreliable and so it's just simply this belief it's a rumor there's just nothing to it the failure to attack that it is obviously an effect of a sense of counsel but also plain error because there's just complete undermining the confidence in this verdict you you can't rely on this belief and you you can't look at a case where basically my client stood defenseless before the court of law he basically didn't have an attorney representing him additionally going back to the land abode business exception in lobby sure the illinois supreme court said that they say cannot rely on conjecture or assumption to disprove that which does affect every single count pending against my client here sanchez's belief was just that it was a conjecture it was assumption and the state's response in its brief was also conjecture about what other witnesses it could have called a trial and assumptions about what maybe those witnesses might have testif to this is improper and this court rejected that argument by the state and people be shown inco i'm pronouncing it correctly there the court said the record was unclear on whether the defendant actually lived on the land where this occurred and the evidence in the record that he was on a public street and actually the record sadness and the state concedes now in its brief that the record the evidence at trial a friendly south she's on private property every witness even the state's witnesses at trial testified that w object or point out in some way post trial directed verdict anything would be another reason that i would contend defense counsel was ineffective at failing to at least acknowledge or realize that on the public street counts his client shouldn't and couldn't be convicted in closing your honor the constitution requires the state to use competent and admissible evidence to meet its burden so individuals are safeguarded from dubious and unjust convictions the state failed to meet that requirement in this case sanchez incompetent and miscible testimony was the only evidence the sacred senate to disprove the exception that's the say fails to meet its burden of proof on all the counts it was convicted of and therefore his conviction must be reversed and the alternative under the plain air rule and the ineffective assistance of counsel arguments this court can reverse remain free in trial thank you  the evidence considered in the light most of the people in the light most favorable to the people could support a finding of guilt in this case the evidence that was before the court or in th evidence was before the trial court was sergeant sanchez's testimony that defendant did not live at the address where he was arrested that was not challenge the trial is not objected to and also what defense counsel has not mentioned is that defendant's own testimony on direct examination was that he was at his friend's home he didn't say that he was had his apartment he didn't say that he had the gun for self defense his position at trial was that it was somebody else's gun and that he was there that night at his friend's house the officers personal mo we know well their officers sanchez had personal knowledge of that is the challenge on the admissibility of personal knowledge of weems address because it was not objected to and there was no chance to lay further foundation this was a completely reasonable position for defense counsel to take his was consistent with his strategy that the gun was not his  out of the plane air exception to the show this there has to be a clear or obvious error this is not a clear obvious error this pearcey challenging the ineffective assistance challenge assistance of counsel challenge go hand in hand you cannot look at he arsay without determining counsel's trial strategy which was that he didn't have the gun it was consistent from opening statements even through sentencing when defendant had a chance to speak an allocution and said again this wasn't my gun this wasn't my gun absolutely the defense that this wasn't his gun was his best trial strategy and again you have must look at all of the evidence in the record defendant had the state of turned over evidence in discovering he had seen the arrest report which had  address he had talked to defendant he'd seen the warrant which listed defendant's address as the place of arrest and he had prepped these witnesses certainly would have been easier to establish that yes defendant did live there but with the evidence that he had he couldn't do that and that wasn't the best strategy to try to here was that he didn't have the gun that there was a fight breaking out the defendant was involved in it was between daryl you can to it if this was a bench trial the defendant had the discovery he knew where defendant lived there was no reason to prolong this and offer an objection that doesn't start with the premise that defense counsel didn't review the discovery didn't talk to the defendant didn't talk to any of the defense witnesses no problem yes but what he did at trial was perfectly reasonable he went with his strongest very no your honor if if the if he had objected the state would either have laid for the foundation to establish that it was within his personal knowledge or if they would have called the other two officers officer murphy or officer guzman who book that they prepared the police report and then they don't want their testimony you you could presume that they prepared that they would testify to the information in the police  report again and again your honor this was his best strategy and it was a completely reasonable strategy and to look back and say oh well that strategy clearly didn't work he should have gone with something else it's not the defense counsel can't put on inconsistent his failed to show that if he was prejudiced in this case there's he testified that he was at his friend's house so there is just no credible claim here that he would have prevailed had he made that objection may have resulted in him not serving not serving the time but in that case since that time it has been clarified that if it can only be appealed when there is some sort of  consequence there's no no real consequence here to not being able to appeal those convictions so in this case he was convicted on the first count absent they could sure of that count the any statements however it's reasonable to presume that he didn't consider information given during booking to be statements those are not considered not considered protected for your  just briefly here a couple of points first of all there is no evidence of any statements made during booking so that's just not something in the record is not something that can be considered the state argued that during weans testimony when he referred to doing billingsley houses going to billingsley home or doing this all at the time of trial the time that that mr wiens testified he no longer lived at that house so it's completely reasonable that he would refer to it as his friend's house or going to home because he no longer lived there so he wouldn't call it my house or my home this state argued that it was completely reasonable for defense counsel to take  using the rules of evidence to protect your client from a result based on inadmissible evidence of course the defense counsel here did not use any of the rules of evidence he didn't make any objections whatsoever and also notably and and moreover the courts condoned the cases where the prosecutor at trial took advantage of a week's defense attorney who was unable to hold the prosecutor in check and the prosecutor was unwilling to voluntarily adhere to the rules of evidence and limit his own conduct and that is what happened here it's not something that should be allowed to stand obviously for the reasons that we've already discussed also it doesn't the record doesn't indicate that defense counsel's strategy was as the state just argued he questioned the two defense witnesses trying to establish that weans lived at that house so obviously his strategy was to there would be mysterious consequences that court base is holding on and on our supreme court rule six fifteen b and that it was a single trial and all they can were from a series of separate but closely related acts and as