may please the court good morning your honour's counsel my name is brian cohan and i represent mr felt for all the senate in this criminal case mr hall was charged with six counts of forgery faced on three checks  number thirty two eighty three counts three and four concerned check number thirty two eighty four and counts five and six refer to check number check number thirty two eighty six question before this court is whether the period of probation imposed on count six for delivering check number thirty two's thirty two eighty six ordered to be served after mr her also five year term of imprisonment imposed on count five for making the same unrelated drug charges not the closely related to acts of making a check capable of defrauding another and delivering that same check on the same date also the defendant and when it was eligible for context consecutive terms of imprisonment under section five eight for unlike that case mr ferraro was not eligible for consecutive terms of imprisonment under that section so if if we disagree with you that these were not closely related  here argues these were a series of posting related acts making and delivering the same check on the same day vast majority of cases this would place the impossible burden of coordinating different rules and regulations on the separate administrate of bodies controlling both and asar and probation turning back five and the two sentences were therefore consecutive additionally a period of probation cannot be imposed consecutively to a term of imprisonment in this case because the consecutive sentences were inconsistent with unified code and ran contrary to this court's holdings imposition of a period of consecutive sentences for forgery offenses are not mandated furthermore consecutive sentences were not imposed in order to protect the problem rather the circuit court ordered the consecutive period of probation because it believed that it could presumption that an offender will receive a sentence of probation unless imprisonment is necessary to protect the public or probation would deprecate seriousness of the offense it is wholly inconsistent to find that a sentence of imprisonment was necessary to protect the public for making check number thirty two eighty six but at the same time find that a sentence of imprisonment was not necessary to protect the public were delivering that same check on the same date i equally irrational to find the probation would deprecate the seriousness of the offense for making check number thirty two eighty six but at the same time find the probation would not deprecate the seriousness of the offense for delivering the same ch for the more imposition of a period of probation consecutive through term of imprisonment runs contrary to this court's holdings and people be king and people b williams in king this court held that consecutive sentences may not be imposed for a series of closely related  here making a delivery check number thirty two eighty six as stated previously constitutes a series of closely related acts and people view would be and this court held that a period of probation mean may not be imposed consecutively to a term of imprisonment for the same  for the same offense because the two terms would be in congress this court's reasoning in williams should be applied to this to a series of closely related acts the nature of defense and the history of defender either justify or prison probation but not both the five logic to find that making check number thirty two a sex justified prison time and at the same time find that delivering the same check warranted probation appellate court held that subsection five six two af allowed for the input imposition of a period of probation to follow a prison term however this subsection is in a political to the instant case of critical importan section five six two does not permit the sentences imposed here office on behalf of the people of the state of the nine as defendant discussed the different in this case was convicted of six charges of forgery counts one three and five for making three separate forged documents on three separate days in cats two four and six for delivering the separate checks each respectively on the days they were made defendant was then sentenced to on counts one through five to five year y term m s r term is part of the prison sentence hence the probation ran concurrently with the prison sentence moreover in this case the d the defendant was subject to the imposition of the cases that went williams line of cases which has to do with sentencing and tripping the sentencing code and deciding when probation it may be imposed consecutive to prison but defendant again runs into several insurmountable roadblocks first addict and king that he relies on has subsequently been clarified and indeed rejected in as an artist and other subsequent cases the one that one crime not do so the rules and went on lines are clear the rules in the one act one crime cases are clear defendant would need to succeed at every step of this process in order to make his case and instead he succeeds at non now turning to the threshold issue of whether the sentence was consecutive or concurrent seven thirty i asked c s five slash five eight one makes clear that every felony prison sentence quote shall include the written therein in this court that the calculation of multiple prison sentences and when they are consecutive somehow changes the sin alice's but that's simply not the case defendant is  case that defendant might serve prison time after the first prison sentence is up but that's not the question the question is when does the probation period amount the probation period runs concurrently with the prison sentence another hypothetical that case defendant would let's say he he received good conduct credit he was out in one year so by the twenty second or twenty third month his emissary would almost be up and his probation would almost be up and that case imagine that further crime well he could be subject to going back to prison for the month left on his m i c r but he also would have violated his probation and he would be subject to re sentencing and on the original charge he could be subject to another that is that is imposed when does that one idea that some subsequent conduct of defendant to that violates his probation would somehow retroactively turn a concurrent into a consecutive sentence it simply does not make sense it's not the law of the state now in this case defendants was subject to the imposition of the concurrent of the consecutive  e probation terms regardless the defendant relies on king a seminal act in the state's one at one crime doctrine but by this point the king doctrine is well established the questions are two is the same whether the sentences are concurrent or consecutive and this court recently in artists reiterated quote that rigorous also extended the king doctrine to consecutive sentences so we've reached the end of the one act one crime analysis does not matter whether the senses are concurrent or consecutive what matters is whether there were multiple acts defendant concedes that there were whether there were any lesser included offenses the senate defendant can see that there was not now we turn to the went williams li somehow addresses the situation but this court in went has already had that that's not the case this court went noted that five eight four governs multiple prison sentences that there's simply no way around this the somehow say that this article which clearly deals with multiple prison sentences also somehow sub silentio deals with with probation sentences is simply a stretch of the language that cannot be made the defendant went also addressed five six two which addresses when multiple how multiple probation periods imposed at the same time a stream but again this c found that that dealt with multiple probation periods we're dealing with not multiple probation periods not multiple periods not multiple prison sentences we're dealing with a prison sentence and a probation period and when found that five five three six pressley allow this it expressly allows a period of probation and a term of imprisonment to be used in combination so here we have no pretty no provision a prison sentence followed by consecutive probation sentence but that court relied express and the fact that there was one conviction the court the court rate reason that they were that imposing both consecutively was imposing two punishments for one conviction now that logic simply does not extend to the issue of when there are multiple convictions no matter how closely related they may be moreover the reasoning in williams has to be called into question because the legislature of the general subsequently passed a provision five six two af which allows the imposition of probation consecutive to prison and that doesn't apply to defendant but it does state is that any rule that can be taken from williams th must that prison sentences and consecutive probation sentences are limits to certain situations that rule must be limited and it has been abrogated subsequently it cannot now be expanded retroactively were committed on summer first two of them are committed on december second two of them working committed on december third the fact that there were separate checks on each of those days the fact that how how the probation in places and so there's no reason to hold that even those two acts are closely related so again defendant would need to be successful at each step of his argument he is successful on one and for the reason stated stay as well as those in our brief i thank your honour's mr heroic knowledge is that section five eight four concerns multiple terms of imprisonment however it would be in congress to allow a consecutive period of probation and imprisonment without if there are no for the question john