cases that are now consolidated before this court and just briefly as far as the history of the case mr mckinney was contesting these matters and until this day made an offer that they would allow the recommendation for him to be placed into the impact incarceration boot camp program and the illinois department of corrections as part of his sentence once that offer was made obviously myself  i went through the administrative code section for sixty point two zero in regards to the eligibility criteria for him being placed in that program i went through that with mr mckinney and on four occasions prior to him answering the plea in this case we contacted the illinois department of corrections and went through his his his past criminal history his current charges what the plea offer was going to be if accepted i went through the regulations as set forth in the administrative code went through all of that with them and verified with the illinois department of corrections and that he met the eligibility requirements and that he would be eligible and be able to be placed into the impact incarceration program  sentence yes we did actually that was part of the dukan conversation with the department of corrections because it actually been sentenced on three separate cases but he served them all concurrently so and they had dated buys does that because he served them at one time but that is considered to be one prior sentence of prison meant and so therefore even though it was three cases combined that he was sentenced on that in fact because he served all of those at one time and he was only in the department of corrections on one occasion that he would still meet those eligibility are when you say concurrent i just i'm not sure that i understand he had two different counts right there he was they were two different counties but they were actually served at the same time within the department of corrections well that he entered the department of corrections for all three of the on the same day i believe i believe he was already in the department of corrections on the one and they sentence him to the other instance that as does concurrent jail time so he wasn't readmitted on those cases he was already in that he was already there but they just included those within the sentence that he was already given i still don't understand how that of all three of those constitute one sentence well and if that's not correct that would that as well that is why we contacted the department of corrections on four separate occasions going through this information just to make sure that in fact that was not an issue that was part of the discussion and we were told by in our discussions with the state's attorney's office and on our discussions with the department of corrections that that was not an issue so it is our understanding that because of the circumstances and how he served at this time that he may be met that requirement is it legal counsel the partner of corrections your of her to what the vision of her own are actually i contacted the department of corrections and was referred to the actual one of the administrators for the for the boot camp program and that is the individual that i spoke with they actually i talked to three different people at the department of corrections but that was one of the individuals i talked to and it one of the counselors at the department of corrections one of the administrators and another individual i just i don't remember what their position was so it's your position in the mr mckinney's history prior criminal history and parties initially who are contemplating a plea to be satisfied with right correct and i was satisfied that he had only had one he was only he only served one prior in term of imprisonment in the department of so you have to do ascertain that just because of in reviewing the prior court documents from macon county in mclean county in regards to those prior cases and reviewing the the sentencing jurors on those cases it was he was sentenced on all those cases to the same period of incarceration in the department of corrections he served them all together at one time well because i didn't want to advise him that he was eligible when in fact he was not and so that that obviously was an issue of concern but when i looked at the the sentencing orders and they were all he was sentenced to all of them at the same period of time he was in the depart of corrections at the same period of time on all of those cases and then i discussed it with the state and i discussed it with the department of corrections and they came back and basically affirmed my thought on that as are my my interpretation of that then that made me believe that that he wasn't back statutory eligible at that time that to part to use the language is not previously served more than one person's been present for a felon in a correctional so obviously we would be incorrect on that and he would i think that would also be an issue in regards to him accepting this plea agreement because the entire issue in this case is is that he accepted this agreement with the understanding that he would be he would be he was recommended for the placement in the program he wasn't placed into the program and the only reason that he was ever given or provided was because of his criminal history and he was never given an explanation as to how or why that criminal history would prevent him from being placed in the program and since we had went through seventeen and thirty five years of age yes you know had he served just one prior term of the sense of imprisonment and the department of corrections based on our interpretation of an discussion it was our understanding that the answer was yes had he been convicted of any of the list prevent him from being eligible to be placed into the program the answer was no you know would he be sentenced to term of one between one and eight years for the plea agreement yes you know was he able to physically participate in strenuous activities we understood that he was going to undergo a physical disability that would prevent participation again he was going to have to meet with someone go under and go through an interview go through a you know some sort of a physical mental evaluation to determine his ability to handle the program and we understood that pads that's a criteria that he has to meet once he's there and that he must consent to the program and the terms and conditions he did that and then he most people approve of placement in the program by the court sentencing order and he meant that as well and so i understand that the department of corrections may have discretion but no more should they have discretion to say you're thirty years old so therefore we don't want to place you into the program when the code says if you're between seventeen and thirty five you're eligible you know or you know that you've been sentenced to seven years but we think that that's too many we think you should serve the seven years instead of being placed into the program well that's what the code says that's what the statute says that they should have they shouldn't be able to to have defense counsel and defend defendants in this state look at the eligibility put in the statute rely on that go through and plead guilty to to a charge and then once they're placed in the department of corrections that eligibility criteria is taken away from them based off of factors that have already been approved that have already been stated in in the statute in the code that these are the factors that you need to meet and that these if you meet these factors they won't prevent you from getting into the program and yet that's that's exactly what's preventing them from getting into the program with no other explanation no knowing no nothing that's been provided the says that there was an issue with you failed physical or there was an issue with you failed r r r r r mental test as far as whether you'd be able to mentally so be able to complete this program there were no issues raised in that regard there were  provided to him and i understand that as the statements and in their argument that this is based off of what he's telling us but that's all we have to go off of in the record so we consists of that that the state never came back and said you know all know we talked to the department of corrections and he failed the physical or no we talked to department of corrections and there was you know some sort of an issue with you know with the mental evaluation of his ability to participate in the program or you know no there was some other issue related to this they never administrative code when why or why are you creating a statutory list of these are the offenses that would say you know if you committed one of deeds you're not eligible to be placed into the program however if you haven't then you're out of the place in the program and then for the department of  to say oh well we're going to add to that list you know we're going to make it to where if you've been convicted of one of these oh for a myriad of other things that that you may have have been convicted of what's what's the point of coke why do we have it if what's if ok and what are those well i guess what i would say is i would say that for example that it says are you able to physically participate in the strenuous activities ok will you feel the physical you can't participate in that what do you do what i mean how does lengthy criminal history but you don't put into those categories the most serious offenses and you only have to go to prison once but you've had a history of crimes for which you've been given juvenile something if they could use their discretion and say we have only so many slots we'd rather use them for somebody that has less of less history but and i think maybe but i think under those circumstances it would be because of we're looking at your criminal history and you've been given probation for time so you know and you unsuccessfully completed that one thing maybe explain it right well and just to say you know based off of that we believe that there is there is a an issue with compliance with our program and it's not we're not we're just denying you because we don't like your criminal history but we were denying you because you know you have to consent to following our  sure you clearly have demonstrated that that's not going to happen here but it's not based off of what he was convicted of but based off of their interview and review of the circumstances and saying based off of what we have we do not believe they you are going to be able to complete this program and so you're not you're not you're not a proper candidate for this because of the fact that you've demonstrated that you're not going to fly with x y or z but that's different than saying well you've got a conviction for burglary so we're not going to let you in oh but by the way but that's not on the list so when you're when you're when you as a defendant are sitting there and saying should i accept this plea offer and this recommendation that i might be able to put into this program and burglaries columns a list of something that's going to keep me out and then on there and i take that i take that inducement and i say fine you know what i'll accept this with that recommendation and then they say well you've got a burglary conviction so you're not in well wait a minute i was told that a burglary conviction was ok you know we called the department a crisis four times we looked at the eligibility code we looked at the statute it doesn't say that there's an issue with with me having committed a burglary offense in the past and me being able to be placed in a program so  that's where mr mckinney is that he's like well i feel like i was misled because i was told these are the eligibility reforms these are the offenses that will keep you know keep you out of the program i gave here and that's the only thing keeping me out of the program that i'm aware of not anything of well you know we think that you're a bad fit for this program because of x y or z or because you have you know fell the physical or because you've got some mental issues or you know you've got some you know some problems with the program is structured in following it but and again i think that goes back to if they look at the priors and there's this prior history of him refusing to comply you know him refuse you know it is use within that criminal history but demonstrate that there's an issue with him being able to  participate in the program but just to say you know you've got you've got a burglary conviction and so therefore we're not going to put you into the program when the eligibility requirements everything that he's looking at before he accepts that plea agreement say that that's that's not something that's keeping you out of this program it's just it doesn't seem to to be fair to the defendant to that he's making the decision based off of these  that he's provided and then that changes once he's in the department for what is made clear time the plea with the paperwork and the admonishment is that it's merely a recommendation by the court right now i understand but he's also accepting that recommendation and accepting that believe based off of what he's been told up to that well yes i did so and then just take it back to my question it appears to read to this curse that that's a catchall provision allowing the department of correction the discretion but the but it should also be read together i mean there's you know i think that the stretch the statute is read as a whole and so when you're looking at any you're saying this is a catch all but then there you're also looking at it and saying there's this list that says this is what's going to keep you out of the program you have to you have to put it all together and i guess under those circumstances i believe that that there's a reason for him not being placed in the program should allow him to live what's wrong is there's no thank you counsel you're out of time you for impact incarceration all know if this court determines that as a matter of law he was not eligible i may be mistaken but i believe the davis case have probably controlled that circumstance i'm not sure that the record is sufficient to be able to make this whether there were multiple chances what's in the record doesn't make clear whether or not there was a single sons versus a multiple sons is although i just i don't understand how there consolidation of cases within one county it just to me that we have an answer questions i agree your honor now it seems clear in this record like i say the focus of the briefing in fact eligible asher honors noted you know there is a difference between eligibility and acceptance the fact that he was eligible did not mean that he was accepted and the fact that he was denied not mean that he was ineligible  here the you know the steve the core really not sure that they could have done much more to make it clear that even though he was eligible again working under the assumption that he was but that did not mean that he would be excepted he signed a consent form that the state provided and then filed with the core where he acknowledged in three separate ways that he understood that the decision was entirely dependent on the part of corrections and that he may not be accepted and that he's not that yes the service term the court then separately in monish him at the plea hearing that the court the court stated i understand that you've signed this consent form but i want to make sure you understand that that the department of corrections has to accept you acknowledge that  the court then said just because i say that you qualified does not mean that they will accept you he acknowledged that they discussed the matter further before i asked if he has any questions and he indicates no i have a full understanding so as far as the question about his understanding of eligibility i guess based on everyone's understanding of his eligibility he i just don't think that there's really much more the court can do could have done to make it more clear that the mere recommendation does not guarantee accept determined you to be statutorily and eligible or we've simply determined that you know the criminal history here with the burglaries you know if if indeed he was eligible it nonetheless seems reasonable to the state that that he may not be actually accepted in the program given you know the these crimes of violence dishonesty you know and it and the impact incarceration program these individuals are trusted to work in our community who live in less secure facilities so even if he was technically eligible it would nonetheless seem reasonable that he was not except that of course we don't have that explanation here from the department of corrections again it appears that he did and it appears again your honour's have raised very legitimate questions but it appeared on my review that he was eligible and assuming he was in fact eligible i don't think that there's that he's been able to make should provide any substantial proof that his mistaken impression as the eligibility was it was reasonably justified  and and the frankly they are the records also devoid of any proof that that his criminal history was indeed the sole basis for his the nile but even if it was that would not necessarily mean that is just it frankly it's completely rebutted by the record i don't think that the court or the state could have done any more to make this clear to him that the mere recommendation was not the equivalent of acceptance into the program no less has had or has any further obviously as the state has said this was went through clearly with mr with mr mckinney in regards to to that eligibility and so i believe that it was it was repeatedly and he was repeatedly informed that he was eligible based off  of you know based off of the requirements and so if in fact he was not i believe that would be a motion to withdraw and also i guess i would offer as the state has if it would assist the court i would be more than happy to file a supplement with providing you with a copy of the making of the claim county