something range of the if not since the does also failed to explain it or the charges and failed to even name any of the charges at that time clearly there was no compliance at all that time now to secure that and  the supreme court has read an exception into that even though there's no language in the statute reference in this exception it would do and they did in this case  and so now there is an exception where if there is a single course of conduct in which there is no substantial change in the fund it's a criminal objective and extended term can be imposed on the lower class thought but that's no we have here here all the when they were on the ground we don't know what that what condition they were in when they were inside the car but we do know that an officer who initially performed a traffic stop in this case did have an opportunity to view inside the car and car and you also testified that he did not know the guns were in the car so it's it's there it's essentially it's got there and has a testimony to that fact and we've got nothing else connecting andy to the guns no fingerprints no physical evidence  there's really nothing to show that he knew the guns were inside the car someone else in the car at the time who claimed responsibility for the guns and they're just we need to be more evidence than just knowledge of the guns were in the car and the fact that you're boring boring and driving the car in easy actually proving that someone intends to exercise control over the guns and typically one would not intend to exercise control over guns that someone else did this of their own so for that reason i would ask this court reversed outright my name is nicholas i when i represent the people of the state of illinois in this matter little statement from the top as far as the issues go the st issue in this case was whether or not the people prove the defendant guilty of the unlawful possession of a weapon by a felon charge and the people don't see t it's sort of stands to reason that there'd be no reason for one individual agreeing to shotguns just for himself when there are two individuals in the vehicle it makes more sense that these two were each had a shotgun for whatever purpose they have been for and we would be constructive possession which was the theory that the defendant was convicted on realty st acknowledge and then whether he had the ability and the intense control of the area not just control of the firearm itself and its actual possession not constructive possession we're looking at does this defendant control the area so we're looking at is knowledge st what do we do to prove knowledge you have to show that the defendant had the opportunity to be aware that this gun was there what was his visibility in the area where the gun was found how long did he have to look at it and were there any furtive movements that might a suggesting that he knew the gun was there we can see there are no furtive movements here because there are an illusion from the officers the guns were thrown from the vehicles there was no way to know that defendant may have thrown one of those vehicles out but it does once this court to follow that but in mcintire we had a pistol we had about twenty minutes i think the court said as far as the defendant's opportunity to be aware of the pistol the pistol was stored st in the in the crotch of the passenger's pants and then it was found later in between the past seat and the door in a plastic area where the defendant had no access to it at that time that's clearly distinguishable from what we had in this case and what we talked about in the brief is that the evidence showed that these these two brothers stopped at various hotels we had saying that was the testimony defending his brother who were both convicted of felonies of dishonesty and so there's really no reason for the jury to give that testimony more weight than the logical reasonable inferences they could have made with regard to a common sense look at could you that's the johnson case that says that the final factor with this the opaque nature of the containers the case law says that you know the zero page major the containers alone is not sufficient to say that he doesn't have knowledge that the shock and so there especial brother with regard to waiver of counsel issue this with this issue the defendant was not apprised of his sentence before he waived his counsel that we don't have to have strict compliance with this rule we only have to have substantial compliance and it's very so it was clear that he had this knowledge of those issues with regard to the sense he didn't know the correct sentencing range before he waived counsel but he wasn't formed of it a week beforehand before the trial started that was after the wait and so the issue here is he's also going to show the was prejudiced by the court's failure not just substantial compliance but also that the court's failure to comply with the rule prejudiced him and he had the opportunity to ask for counsel before moving to trial but he didn't do so representing himself he had alleged problems with his communications with prior counsel and he had alleged that the speedy trial issue throughout so the sentence is really just an afterthought that's being raised for the st time on appeal and i don't really think that it factored into his decision to proceed pro se i think for all those reasons we can look at the maxi case which talks about an improper sentencing range here the defendant not being aware of the proper sensing range of the weights and the maxi court still found substantial compliance and one of the things that they rely upon in that case was the legal sophistication of the defendant in that case he might have been a paralegal or something like that and we don't have that level here but we do have is that offend he was more successful than the defendant in maxie because he actually got off on the most difficult charge whereas a defendant maxie actually failed in getting his evidence pretz moreover the defendant has an extensive criminal record he's very little informed with what happens and based on the record in his comments  t he was heavily involved in the press the defense of his case from start to finish and so i think it really shows that he understood what he was doing here he understood what the ramifications would be and you still pursued it anyway and i think that a maxi can underwrite this misinformation regard to sensing ranges not dispositive of whether or not he knowingly and voluntarily waived his counsel which is the real issue here we're trying to find out if this was knowingly voluntary and report talks about the adversarial portion of this trial was always open to the public and with regard to the poor dear there were twenty nine members of the public who were not alternately selected as jurors who were present and importantly when we're talking about showing  that they would have been here and i recognize that i do need to sense it in radford or one of the related cases and i recognize that these people didn't voluntarily show up but that doesn't change their status as members of the public but still there and i think what's the most important factor this is not just that you know the defendant's friends or family are present there are members of the public and the reason we have this fundamental protection of a public trial is to avoid you know problems with the courtroom procedure to remind that the judge and the prosecutor what their roles are to encourage people to come forward as witnesses to avoid perjury the defendant never learns any of these things occurred in this case  certainly that was an error on the court pardon that it should have made those findings but the problem is the court wasn't given an opportunity to mike to make those findings by a contemporaneous objection in his brief defendant argues there was no contemporaneous objection to this procedure because it would have fallen on deaf ears because the court had made it a standard practice to exclude the public during point here and that's were in order if we had mentioned it was no actual proof that the any members of the public actually left it is possible that though the court said you should leave perhaps there was space in the mother stayed or other members of the public were there but importantly not given the court that opportunity to object prevented it from making these findings on the record perhaps accommodating the defendant another way clear that the court would have been willing to make those findings if it had been given the opportunity to do so however absent mindedly the trial court did not initiate or offer those findings on its own accord on the record  not is it is a trivial error or not was there some prejudice to the defended by this practice because the record said not everybody lation of a public trial affects a fundamental right it in this case there's just there's not a shred of evidence to support