a temporary home away from home it's business as usual and i want to thank the staff for me on springfield and from chicago for all of their systems for making this trans transition and with that we will begin to call our first  and she did not report to be acting on anyone else's authority but her own for those reasons this court should reverse the public court and vacate her subsection a one forgery conviction and this browns trial the state presented no evidence about the creation of this check the state's own witness detective roman testified to has no evidence that ms brown created it or that ms brown supplied the signature of bright douglas on the front of the check now at trial brown admitted that she purporting to be the same tiffany brown whose name was on the front of the check as the name of haiti there are certain circumstances where we're signing someone else's name or the mere endorsement of an on back and checked can satisfy be a one provision in capable of defrauding even without endorsement on the back at that was the case in that case where a defendant came to a bank with a with a counterfeit check it was an indorsed and he was arrested at that point before he even put an endorsement on and court found that the counterfeit check was false from the minute it was created and it was already capable of defrauding at that moment even without an endorsement so here once his check at issue here was literally created when it was produced it up it was hey we'll be fine from that moment forward miss brown signature was not needed to make it any more false than it already was in fact it couldn't make it any more false because her signature on the back was genuine it was a real signature and that's not being  you correctly pointed out the others dropped as a result of being one hundred one crime yet it was the same actor presenting the challenge money i understand the legal significance but what is the consequence to your client here  to a lesser concurrent offense is a justiciable issue because it didn't it affects the integrity of the good judicial process so the state has argued that this is somehow moved i don't think that is i think we have a valid just fishable claim here and it's simply a matter of trying to get this excess conviction off of ms brown's record it's important to note that the state simply didn't prove an element here of the offense she did they didn't prove that she made or altered its check in terms of was an intent to defraud and i think that's part and parcel with the fact of that she knew the check itself was counterfeit but i don't think that enters into the equation here we're talking about whether she made or altered it within the terms of of subsection  the endorsement was needed to complete this counterfeit check but i think that that one of thinking first ignores christerson and second it blurs the line between subsection a one forgery and subsection a to forgery the legislature made a clear distinction between creating a document and issuing it so it's a one a two hander by relying on the endorsement alone to satisfy a one that really muddy the waters between what is creating it and what is the sharing it and the look at all the evidence that there was substantial evidence that she in fact didn't make the check no justice ice big mistake didn't present any sort of circumstantial evidence argument at trial it was honestly the making aspect that was sort of overlooked it rather wasn't a whole lot said about it at either way and at the appellate court level of the state took the position that the endorsement alone suffice talking about the circumstantial evidence idea and i think if you look at this circumstantial evidence to stay put forward in this corps i think you'll find that it's at best speculative they're looking at things like a college degree or nine years of experience as a chicago police officer and the fact that her sister had attempted to steal her identity on a couple of occasions to say that she made the check those facts have nothing whatsoever to do with the grecian the check do they go toward intent to defraud sure i think that's a legitimate suggestion that they go toward into the fraud but it doesn't it doesn't prove at all who printed up this check on a piece of cardstock and put mr brown's name on part of it in our brief we put forward a number of cases spanning the past  hundred twenty years from courts all over the country and they've all uniformly agreed that there is no forgery when someone signs their own name this court has likewise reiterated that understanding it as recently as two thousand  both case where a defendant's conviction for forgery was reversed were all he did was sign his own name to a letter containing false information the defendant there was like here only defrauded all the matters is that the check was capable of defrauding once all the terms on the front were filled out here the check had all the necessary terms before the endorsement was applied it had a name to pay you had a fixed amount of money and had a date had bank on which it was purportedly drawn so all the terms were already on the check and the fact that she knew there was counterfeit is really immaterial to the question of who made the stay here doesn't present any other cases from any depending on the law of the particular jurisdiction here under day one a false assertion of agency would trigger an a one conviction because it's purporting to act on someone else's authority but as the state defendant's claim that her knowing endorsement of a fraudulent check does not constitute forgery under subsection a one of the forgery statue of the reason is the defendant has never contested her guilt of the greater offense of attempt that and also her forgery conviction under subsection eighty two there was only one sentence of probation and terror and where one sentence is entered it should be for the greatest offense and it's our position that the lesser offenses merged into the greater offense and defendant does not stand guilt convicted of a crime of a one forgery while she was probably found guilty of those counts the judgment is on the attempt that in defendant has not challenge that conviction the second reason that this court does not need to reach defendants claim is because the evidence of her guilt of forgery under subsection a one is not the only it does not rest solely on her endorsement at trial pleadings and that trial and in the response of the defense motion for a new trial the people argued that the evidence established her guilt of making the check on appeal a position  well it's in the closing arguments for argued that she was guilty and it's also in response to the motion for a new trial or defendant defense counsel argued that we presented no evidence that she made the chapter we responded that the circumstance that the evidence  forgery cases is often circumstantial and the evidence established that she made that that was our position that the circumstantial evidence established it and there was also our position is we need to if that's true then what backs did you rely on to make re logical inferences flow in favor of the prosecution and in this case you have a defendant who her own story helped contribute to her finding of guilt because it was so contrived that it suggested that it was a story made up blame to her sister if if if her crimes were detected and that's exactly what she did she was a police officer her status as a police officer in the past she'd been able to assure that her sister face the consequences of her fragile an x she could say is my sister the felon who did this to me and when her story is considered in light of all the other evidence who gestures her conduct her statements her lies that she told the bank teller when all of that the bank manager i'm sorry when all of her conduct is consider in total it's it support the inference that she made the check made out to herself that she presented to the bank forgery that was the only forgery count defendant was contesting an appeal and even if defendant signature is the sole evidence of her guilt of forgery it still is sufficient to  satisfy a one all of the elements are met here we know defendant had knowledge that the check was counterfeit these are not contested we know she intended to defraud the bank we know that the document was capable of defrauding signature on a friday when document it wasn't a check it was a issuance from the city of berwyn a document a property document that backs constituted forgery because the document was counterfeit even though it contained both the correct signature of the person who who has was authorized to sign those documents and in maui the question just simply comes down to does make baltar do those words exclude a person genuine signature even though they're signing their name to a known document that's from they know it's false and they're trying to defraud someone and it's out of position that that make an document to be considered genuine and rather document might have been capable of defrauding someone without its signature it could not defraud a financial institution because that document cannot be negotiated until it is signed and defendant by signing her name is certainly altering a document capable of defrauding another because a financial institution is not going to accept that check until i  indictment as avoid saying that he was charged with the wrong offense but even if there was one crime committed with the creation of the check there was a second forgery when defendant with knowledge with intent to defraud signed her name as an she even if she was the last person and this is just if this court accept the premise that she didn't make the check if that the soul that evidence of her guilt is there and joyce met that was her contribution that was altering this document so that it could difference between the making of the forged document and the issue we were delivering of the forged document so what appears that your argument is the fact that she was delivering this forged document it doesn't matter that there's a different charge for the making but there seems to be two different ideas one is making and one has to live in two different theories for the same offense the same act the same act now they're different acts because defendant can forgery is a crime that's committed in secret when you're not always going to have you know be able to produce or catch someone in the act of doing it that's the whole point they're trying to defraud people so circumstantial evidence is can be and it certainly her record if you go check the circuit court computer it would show that she still stands convicted of this is a something that's actually on her record it's a just tissue will issue because it affects the integrity of the judicial process if nothing about this case you did not reason the argument that this conviction as you described it should fall because the same reason is a to other words one act one crime but the creation of a check would be a separate physical action from presenting it for delivery so i think there are actually two distinct physical acts of the word i don't see a one at one crime issue here it really is a matter of the sufficiency so was their judgment on this  council about circumstantial evidence do we do we look at the circumstantial evidence surrounding the signing of the check the endorsement of the chair to see whether or not there's enough evidence there that there is an alteration words your position is regardless of what circumstantial evidence around to there could never be in all three well i think we can look at the circumstantial evidence and as the state argues in their in their brief circumstantial evidence is often used in forgery cases possession and how she ended up at the bank with that ultimately the circumstantial evidence here doesn't answer the question of who made this jack it doesn't tell us whether she printed it whether her sister printed it whether they were in on it's a gatherer or whether some third one third party that we don't know about the actual meeting again it things like her college background or her time with the police from it even her sister's attempts to steal pride bending a patch don't have anything to do with the creation of this check so the circumstantial evidence doesn't get us to the point where we can say beyond a reasonable doubt that she produced this check the state up points to people versus m l those courts nine hundred forty one decision in that case the court look at in one thousand and thirty seven version of the forgery statute which prohibited creating false records of a public nature so the city comptroller the negotiation goes toward a two forgery we're now worried about whether it can be negotiated whether we're looking at whether it's apparently capable of defrauding that's the key language in the statute and again christensen says it's already capable of defrauding