felony issue if this court for first talk about either of those issues out order i'm happy to do that anyone prosecuted for a crime in facing a potential loss of liberty in illinois is entitled to a defense attorney attorney is a procedural right that it don't have been entitled to for ever but there are fundamental differences between the role of guardian ad litem and the role of defense counsel to preclude a single attorney from acting in both of those roles the three primary differences are the morial to use to whom the guardian ad litem in the defense attorney over their loyalties a consequences that don't have anything to do with the minors at best interest based on an adjudication of diplomacy there are different interests and there are different interests at work and so him in mary j d is not inconsistent with our position correct that in any way and say mr burke ray you're acting as defense counsel at the end of the proceedings it becomes very clear that mr berger grave is operating as a guardian ad litum because just because client wants to go home and stay with his mother and receive community based services there were arguments that were available to counsel in support of that argument whether the trial court ultimately would have found that position in the best interest of the minor is one matter the defense counsel had arguments at his disposal that he could have argued in favor of his client's position but instead he told the trial court i cannot in good conscience argue that custody should not be permitted from the minors and other so we know in the case of the trial but the trial court what what what what counsel did at trial he did not express plea advocate for conviction he did not go that far but what he did do is he soft pedaled the defense of the  way by the past monitors actions another thing that again because we don't we can't get into defense counsel but we have to assume that he's acting as a guardian ad litum because he says he's acting as a car either so i think there's a different they are if that's what he wanted to do that what the record show he did his cross examination was limited to eliciting damaging testimony and then under on on his direct examination by challenging the is the fact that the attack that that the incident was unprovoked and that and that the minor went completely out of control and nothing provoked it and i wouldn't ask any questions at all them so answering no cross examination would that would have been just talk when that would have been better than all the sitting damaging information and again i go back to the notion that if this if defense counsel had never said i'm acting as a  great had never introduced himself as jail if he had never acted in a way that was inconsistent with the role of defense counsel we wouldn't be making this argument the fact is that the record gives rise to just  is on rehabilitation i would agree with you but when at this point with the ten year old that rehabilitation was not was no issue for the trial court so that's your position yeah that's not my position at all but my position is a section one zero one three of th the downside particular options ultimately under the rules of professional responsibility and the traditional role of defense attorney the client controls the course of the representation the client makes the big choices the client decides whether to go to trial this fall or this is a ten year old child let me ask you a question let's assume that the child's mother is a coke addict and provides no sense of vision whatsoever for the child of the child as many children do upon with their parents and wants to go home you're sitting here telling us that that's what the trial but the defense attorney has to advocate for knowing full well that if a child goes home the child could end up dead if the child is incompetent to make those decisions and the rules of professional client is able to make decisions in the client's interest the role some provide for in the client's best interest to provide in the client's interest defense attorneys have clients all the time who make choices that are against their interests in the system where they get defense attorneys all it requires is now the state is going to have to do their job and they're going to have to do an investigation in terms of mom's hoke addiction or the condition of the home it's the about certain and counsels in the pending views and i would make the analogy that occurs in adult cases sometimes where two years of probation is just asking for trouble and so the client would rather if in the subsequent p c it turns out to be contrary to some part to his client i don't believe that i jump believe that that trial counsel can override as fundamental a decision as what happens to me and cite any case for that proposition to nobody i just listed the five things that offend the controls not the tourney as opposed to how to cross examine witnesses which with this is the call which defense preserved whether law out there that says the defendant gets to decide what does this mean to ask or is because no attorney would try to override if the client wants to go to dios e rather than take probation there is no defense attorney would try to do that because the rules of professional responsibility talk about the objectives of representation at the trial stage the objectives of representation deal with guilt or innocence at the sentencing stage they deal with what happens to me after i've been convicted and again i would reiterate giving giving giving children the right to a defense attorney at trial a real defense attorney at trial and it sensing doesn't undermine the rehabilitat role of defense counsel in deciding what's best for the minors rehabilitation is different so when the to zealously advocate a particular position it's that it's  deal and there was nothing there's nothing that indicated that those propositions were limited to just article two  rodney age supreme court decision which recognized but the amendments article five and the difference between criminal and juvenile proceedings that court stated article five may represent a fundamental shift from the singular goal  my best interest that was based on the mother saying at that point that the minor was in school and wasn't getting the medical or psychological care or the special needs child and when i asked what she was doing were forcible so he's  i that is the case i missed that legislative history but i just submit that the list ends with any other felony which involves the use or threat of physical force or violence against any individual the legislature that would mean the legislature w even a felony that even threatens threatens physical force or violence which would result in a forcible felony but in here where your battery would have to be raised to the higher standard of including resulting in great bodily harm or permanent so yes i would just submit but i'm reading it like that where aggravated battery would be the only felony that is held to this standard of great bodily harm or permanent just disability  would be the logical when only the threat of physical force is needed for any other felony of course in this case he was church with a heck of a perry resulting from being thrown well it  that there are some cases said the site but even jones which came out of the third district and decided that the opposite of angelica's schmidt said we we recognize there is an issue here about how the state should be interpreted and we would fight the isn't prejudice minor had some mental disabilities to some extent correct sure t i will make this very brief what we know about counsel is counsel thought this little boy should be removed from his home and the only way you're going to get to sentencing and the removal of him from from his home is if you get that initial  judy cation so if councils acting as guardian ad litem and believes that rodney should be removed from his home the guardian ad litum side of his representation needs the adjudication if they don't have an adjudication consistent that if you don't admonish the accused whether it's an adult offended or a minor that he needs to file a motion to reconsider sentence to preserve issues it is unfair to penalize him for that at the stage the remedy consistently has been to simply address the minors sentencing arguments if this court would prefer to send it back for accurate admonitions that i think quit going to probably trucker so i have to work a little bit harder on to ensure that the minor understood the admonitions because because the sentencing transcripts are very clear that the meyer didn't understand what the truck was saying about that but if this quote wants to remain on for admissions and the opportunity to file a motion to the offenses that it intends to exclude others in one nine hundred ninety as you observed in public act eighty six to ninety one the legislature did amend the statute and the only thing that they did in that public act was to insert that phrase  that limits the aggravated battery to great bodily harm or permanent disability and disfigurement the legislature is intended presumes that when they make an amendment they mean to amend the statute in a meaningful way under the state's interpretation of aggravated battery as that don't result in great bodily harm and the state's interpretation if if this aggregate educated battery falls into the catch all phrase what phrase about only aggravated batteries that result in great bodily harm and permanent disability it renders that that language superfluous you don't need that language in there to get these aggravated batteries there would've been no point for the legislature to include that particular phrase because all aggravated batteries including aggravated batteries that cause great bodily harm or permanent disability or just figure it would have already been in compassed and that catchall phrase that sat at the bottom of the sta probation is for conduct that is normally dealt with as a matter of school discipline so we would we believe that the argument sufficiently presented if you if you don't believe that then make it could certainly be remanded for or