reporting on a daily basis yes news was no he was presumably aware that he as a condition of his probation worse required to go to a recording i mentioned in your reply brief supplemental brief of indeed he had a we did make the argument that there are other avenues for the court to impose similar programs for through the probation department and that this program was really implemented and designed by the sheriff's department is a condition of electronic monitoring or is there oh that is our contention that it really was not established that this is that was ever established that this is a condition of electronic home monitoring might say says it was but do find in the testimony that there was sufficient no i mean i think the court in khost that day reporting i mean somehow he ended up an electronic monitoring through the sheriff's departments and we also made the argument and i would maintain that you know the chef doesn't have the authority to impose electronic monitoring because it is a form of home confinement and considered incarceration which can only be done by the judge and well but going to the probation or day reporting that's your argument that is void because they don't have the authority but you also further argument that even if there were true even if the car could do it that does not mean that he had to report to electronic monitoring initial d are right now in their home participant patrick talks about doesn't use the word day reporting at all doesn't write it uses the words electronic monitoring program nobody either a trial or called saucy air by the title associate for the proposition that when things are not spelled out in probation forms that then it's very difficult to enforce those provision orders and indeed it's improper to try to enforce a probation  order a condition of probation which is that explicitly laid out there and so you cite if the proposition that since is just a day reporting that was insufficient to put your client on notice that he would have to essentially against a fine for violating the internal rules of the piriac in prison release program would have to come from a source other than the probation order itself those sanctions are set forth in section five day of seventy two in the uniform unified  corrections so this in a public court hilton saucier when you finally appear neck and prison even though it's a condition of probation the proper way to go is to proceed statutorily against the offender for violating the y reporting and not necessarily home confinement really you because well there's no such that the one of the problems here is that there's no statutory key scheme for day reporting so every single cook every single corner of probation that imposes day reporting first is invalid number two though unless it also explicitly sounds electronical my friend in addition to the reporting  right just telling us really right so at some point in time there was a contract or an agreement or something had to do with specifically good reporting right is there any evidence in this case as to any contractor do reporting  know because i think that if the judge had imposed a reporting as a condition of probation the state still has the avenue to pursue them either through a violation of probation or possibly imposed but even assuming the sheriff could put him on electronic monitoring it may have been a means for the sheriff to ensure he complied with the day reporting which was the condition imposed but it was also i mean it was  not a condition of the reporting could not be condition of electronic monitoring if anything what kind of monitoring might have been a tour used to ensure compliance with their reporting could be a condition of  but we would argue that the converse was not true but then how does it affect instruction well and it just sets continually said that this is a jury question if they reporting is a condition of home  this is for the jury but the instruction told the jury if you find that he did not go today reporting he has violated his electronic monitoring agreement basically gave him that proposition as a matter of law and so it took that question way from the choice of the jury never was able to make that determination is your argument that it's not required because certainly i mean it's just a source is pointing out he reported  part of my probation if i don't do that i will have my probation violated but did you know that that was the condition of this electronic monitoring agreement which was put in later it wasn't in the it's not in the statute and it's not in the condition yes because it's not an automatic condition it's not something that's a statutory requirements if anything it might be found in the catch all provision but then we need to prove or students approve that it imposed that as a condition of  honour's the defendant concedes that he knew that the judge ordered him to attend a reporting and he does not dispute that he failed to report today reporting he simply argues that it was not proven that he understood that the reporting was a condition of electronic monitoring and in fact that the reporting is a representative of the supervising authority which is the cook county sheriff's office which according to beecham has all of the authority to kick the can quote unquote complete authority over the program the sheriff may in his discretion this taken together to give him the notice and our our our argument obviously is that all the testimony taken together i mean the fact that he even went to i'm january twelfth before he went to the day reporting supervisor he went to the ho not the court but let me make it let me let me address your point before mine is well we have the case of people versus william which was cited by the defendant people versus william which basically states you know a judge does not micromanage the programs that he  he assigns the defendant the probationers and if he does not if he makes a ged for example a condition of probation he doesn't have to say you must go to this facility these times of day take these particular task go just reporting he doesn't get his ged or doesn't go to the day of the drug abuse or whatever and he turned to the state because it didn't comply with one of the conditions of probation if he can put it  of probation department to operate programs in this case it was for three programs regarding public service work and it specifically stated that effective operation of those programs requires delegation of responsibility that the legislature gave the probation  as to brand where how and the nature of that work and it is an unreasonable burden to place on judges to keep them advised to make all these determinations it's just necessary that this is a state run facility their day reporting program is just a program that the judge defendant that defendant quote would be monitored by electric home monitoring unquote and that in order quote to be monitored by home alectryon moderating its mandatory he defendant report to it the day reporting posing as a condition of home monitoring and i think that the jury found that in the jury was reasonable in finding that and especially now in the light most favorable to the state that that testimony in conjunction with willie brock is testimony in like trying to form a yes what is home detention what is the home detention program what is home detention right what is right is the same thing is just it's just as quinn pointed out at the time the tension wasn't an issue in this case i mean there's a program prosecuted for skate then he must be in custody you have to be in custody for state reason but don't they say he could be prosecuted for escape under thirty one point six they absolutely said that based on the fact that they were that they based that no such thing in this record i don't know if there is it sounded like there was sounded like something like that might have existed it was not in this record and basically we can only go by the evidence in this record in i absolutely stand by the fact that the evidence in this provisions that say and the sheriff who is a supervising authority has the authority to to come up with other conditions that are reasonable and i have in this case the judge himself through the day reporting and therefore it was a reporting he what he signed in the shoulder the eat em notice right and as we found out in court from the testimony of the two representatives a supervising authority they work together run we can't have one without the other one is a condition of the other testimony and when they can will also take the circumstantial evidence of the fact that he showed up at the home electronic monitoring supervisor the day before he showed up to the day reporting supervisor what inf because there was no evidence of his any tampering with it was not an issue in this appeal so i just carried out i don't recall the specifics of that ok the corner allowed in the jury instruction the proposition the defendant knowingly violated a condition failed to report for duty reporting ok and this was an element of the crime and he chose that because you know it was an element of the crime that was extremely well documented and easily verifiable and element of the crime element of the crime of the state is not reporting for the reporting he chose no and at this point taken in the light most favorable to the state absolutely all of that testimony all of that combined with the participation contract showed that in fact when he was guilty of this crime i mean he is now trying run without authority he knowingly enters a building where the defendant doesn't just getting a really entered the building he's just disputing that he didn't have authority i mean he you can you can choose what your trial strategy is right elements you want to challenge it which ones you don't it doesn't make the jury t briefly yes just briefly we would just maintain that electronic monitoring is a sentence of incarceration something that is the equivalent of going to appeal institution that must be imposed by the judge thus it's not we're not troubling the judge with micromanaging this is that you just all function that cannot be delegated and williams is a little bit different than this case very different because in that case the judge specified the number of hours of probation and then gave the defendant to the probation department to determine the community service it was not an issue of here you know we can't delegate micromanagement of imposing the sentence of incarceration but the one tried monitoring are two separate programs and again if you look at camp but you know in that case the defendant was initially given electronic monitoring and later transferred today reporting so i think that helps to support our position that it's two separate programs and can be defendant cannot be subjected to escape under that statute and finally i would just respond to counsel's argument that defense counsel did contest that this was an element of the crime in his closing argument until you argue that the