morning i plan to focus on the sufficiency of the evidence argument and i also wanted to briefly address the role for sixteen c claim and specifically addressed the effect of the illinois supreme court's decision in people first as health there's no once the question was the context still claim that mr alvarez broke into the house on cutty without permission and started shooting the defense argued that mr alvarez was present on the back his account was that he was waiting on the back porch you had a fight between david realist and left in the record shows user well that he had showed up and he well he testified your honor that he that  the window of the dining room the state's witnesses were all over the place on as to what happened there and there's no photographic evidence that there had been an entry there eventually did enter through the  gusto were fighting on the other side of the door and that's why he opened the door between the back porch and the kitchen it wasn't it seemed like for mr it was this testimony that the question was antagonism between mr alvarez and david rios rather than trying to keep my client out of the house and there was photographic evidence that there's been damage caused to the door but there was also testimony that the firefighters had been at the house they argue that actually testimony was regarding a different door i don't think that that's a fair reading of the record they were referring to the door between the kitchen and the  court found that there was some evidence of an accidental shooting i went on holiday to find that to display the remainder of my client's testimony but it did so on a basis that was all that was incorrect the court found that  was a mutual mutual fight but also point out that there's some there's some evidence on the back of the doesn't require credibility assessment which is their location of the knife according to mr riehl i was when my client fired him in the kitchen he  has to show you that no reasonable judge could have convicted him and all the evidence inferences therefrom have to be viewed in the light most favorable to the judgment defendant campaign or personal simply by arguing that there were contradictions or by arguing that his testimony was mark credible that was for the trial judge to sort out let's look at the most important points first of all lack of consent the judge found the defendant didn't have consent or authority to enter the home and the judge was right defendant said he was living with his mother he was not living there at the time moreover his judge let me point out that defendant himself admitted that he had to call the victim he had to call judy that morning to get permission to come over and get his clothing and that makes sense because she'd sworn protection against him the month before he had to ask for a consent to be there because he didn't have the authority to be there he initially tried to enter the home by coming by crawling through the dining room window and he now argues well it was some confusion sufficient evidence of an accident let's recall the evidence here when fena testified he claimed that after he entered the house he pulled out his gun he pulled out his gun at the time he went into the home he then claimed that even though he was pointing a gun a first of all with respect to the judge's remark i think if you read it in context you would agree with my interpretation that he did not find it was an accident but let me go back to the evidence and finish answering your question here ok well i think it's a two part question judge because the defendant testified that he walks into the house with a gun and then david has a knife he then claims that even though he was pointing the gun at david that david cut to his left i think with the exact words got behind judy and called not push but told her into the defendant and i ask you why would david get behind his girlfriend and push or into a man who's holding a gun a reasonable trier of fact could reject this in judge plumbing did to he specifically stated on the record on page the page fourteen of the white three returns to judge noted that the physical evidence now it's quote marks corroborate some accidental shooting and i bring this up because i share your concern that he didn't see that at all to quote reporters who have the standard of only being right to ninety five percent is a satisfactory that they're wrong then five percent of the time and they do that to me a lot as a traveler because i talk very fast and so  couldn't your office when they read this thing which i think would be kind of blatant oh he must not have meant that file a correction of the record in front of judge finding said judge finding did you mean there were sex evidence of accidental shooting or not the judge could choose to believe the testimony of the state's witnesses and clearly he did and it was for him to sort this out not for us well it's did find the defendant guilty of felony murder right so even an accident wouldn't save him because