breeze we raise three issues in this case however i'm moved to discussing the three issues around like you but i would like to focus on issue one and three in the first issue of the trial court restricted confront the witness and present the facts jose morrison was for all intents and purposes the ringleader of what occurred today it was his fiancee his grandparents house he is the one that knew that there was money he knew he came up with a plan and in this case he negotiated a plea of guilty but mentally have which by definition means his mental illnesses were manifesting themselves during the at the time this offense occurred and that lead occurred in front of the same believability and his ability to perceive the events and recall those events in his memory and the truck or ask defense counsel if you had any expert testimony to explain these diagnoses and defense counsel did that over diagnosis such as alcohol the planets and substance dependents do not need expert testimony every jury in every day for has enough everyday experience to understand substance of penance people have another everyday experience they don't need expert testimony to explain what that means terms of evaluating witnesses probability counselors you agree that that testimony came in not the use of the word you know pleading guilty but mentally ill but the drug use schizophrenia mental health issues didn't all come in through other avenues so so it was mentioned in some context but not in the same way  things and how all of these this cocktail of drugs would have backed his perception his memory his ability to understand what was going out around him and the mention of schizophrenia that was by heather who he wasn't related to anything and so while some of these facts came out because defense counsel wasn't able to link it to jose's diagnosed mental illnesses and specifically and jones that were crying at the time  it didn't have the same effect as defense counsel little to point out to the jury that only was you taking these drugs he has a chemical dependence and was experiencing the effects of these drugs and the mental illness at the time  friends and you can take that into into account and there's ample case often from the state of illinois that says a vigil habitual drug addicts are known liars and kinds of people are allowed to use their own common sense when it comes relevant you don't get to talk about any of it why and more likely he should have he should have parse them out and recommended some diagnoses are things that jurors have more experience with and would be able to address and understand the they would have to one volt murder and home page and when the court looked at those two of those two offenses and those acts it's from that those were not the same and that case the defendant argued in that case that the setting of the fire was the last series of facts in that situation home invasion is the one that had the additional act so they couldn't combine home invasion into murder because we had that actually act of entering the home on the lesser but when they get you home invasion residential on crime doctrine is to punish the defendant for each of his acts but only one time per not to over one should defend and in this case if if the home invasion conviction in the robbery conviction stand fact from the rock so here the the residential burglary old elements of it are already being punished in the other two offenses and so under the the idea of the guideline of what happened crime do not over punish or defended noted the history of drug prior drug use drug use in the time of this history of blackouts history of that he had schizophrenia were all before the jury so that doesn't tell the jury much of anything because they don't the jury doesn't know what that means what a guilty but mentally ill verdict means then we have a longer list of potential diagnoses which none of which  explained in any shape or form of a do do not leave the truck were abused discretion in losing this cross examination there is simply no indication of the relevance of these particular diagnoses because there's nothing to show how this would affect his credibility as far or as in terms of ability to see perceive ability to remember or just it generally speaking the claim acts in this case the if is the share the act entry bus the residential burglary would have a nother act and a ball hit with that was not in any way shape or form convictions was well established saying that hey you can't convict or two of this even if they share one act as long as there's an additional act involved in the second best but i do not believe  and understand the effects of alcoholism and drug addict and counsels the surgeon that his mental illnesses go to his weight and his credibility is good enough in in a situation where the jury can use common sense and no expert testimony and residential burglary residential burglary consists of only one act and if when that act is complete you subsumed by home vision there's nothing left of residential burglary in which to impose a that was the one that had the actual act the the entry that was not being punished by the murder conviction which is why the court allowed both of them to stand because you can't murder the lesser in when there's this actual act of but when you get to the home vision the residential burglary the respectfully it is it's not even into the second part of the king analysis it's only the first part of the canon houses it is because residential burglary is only one act we don't move to other lesser included if this were disagrees and we and we do need to move to the lesser included analysis yes residential burglary would be a lesser included in this in this analysis because as i pointed out before the two elements of residential burglary arson soon in the other conviction and in