the next race called is number one two one nine two six people versus coach agenda number two pounds for a longer you very happily you may proceed thank you they please the court my name is sam hammond i represent we're here today because the sean coach was convicted of two gun possession crimes for possessing one gun those multiple convictions offend the intuitive rule that a person should only be punished once for one act fortunately we have the one act one crime doctor in illinois that prevents multiple convictions for one act of the state of illinois that there could be no one act one crime violation because one of the crimes required lacks and that's also the state's position this the problem with that position is that this court has repeatedly rejected the idea that simply because one crime requires more same act of entering a bus even though they could hijack the season in the hijacking requires the additional act of exerting control of the vehicle and then people in the clearing which is the main case we rely on this court convolution where the defendant was convicted of residential burglary and home invasion finding that those were based on the same act of entering into the drawing you know the invasion requires additional act of inflicting harm on the victim and then you have the numerous time in terms of murder and home invasion right and the court looked at that and said well the argument was that both based on setting the fire right and the court said well  stood own with the commission for murder right but that's because later in issue twelve or thirteen this court said implicitly that the crux of home invasion is the entry of a welling so the crucial act i mean  s you know it's a situation where maybe the judge will exercise it exercising lenity that he felt that he was going to be constrained by statutes that he didn't necessarily agree interesting results although the reasoning in williams was based on simultaneous possession theory the idea that a simultaneous possession of two items was only a single act and after on this course decision on and that's not correct reasoning  correctly recognize that the definite was being inappropriate punished for twice for possessing one gun well on the other hand i recognize that the defense unlawful use of weapon conviction that in that case was nearly completed by the reasoning doesn't offend that we agree that it shouldn't it can't be defended really but the confuse reasoning in those three cases illustrates the need for this court to clarify the law in this area so if there is a please the court counsel rethought staats from the attorney general's office for the people there are really two different issues here the first is the one act one crime issue and defendant is attempting to get his case under the one act one crime rule because he wants to make it look like he's not doing anything new but there is clearly no violation of the one act one crime rule as it currently exists that rule says you count up the number of distinct physical acts and you can have as many convictions under different statutes as physical acts assuming neither of offenses of lesser included and that's the second part of the one act one crime just we're not talking about it in the space because there's no dispute that neither offenses lesser included but under omened it's very clear two distinct physical acts that's the end of the analysis for one act one crime purpose it's a loaded gun as to physical acts which was the holding and allman certainly holding a gun in one hand holding ninety two bags of heroin in the other are two distinct physical acts so that's all that's needed to address the one act one crime part of the case what defendants really asking here is for a new rule that would prohibit two convictions whenever there is an overlapping element one problem with that is that's exactly the rule this court already rejected in rodriguez the only difference is the defendant's adding the squawks language he says we are going rodriguez on with new terminology rodriguez was very similar to this case there was an overlapping gun element the result to charges armed or aggravated criminal sexual assault home invasion both had an overlapping element of the defendant threatening the victim with a gun as here the gun is an element of both offenses and this court said in rodriguez that's not a problem multiple convictions were proper because the defendant committed multiple acts that's the same case here no there is no expansion of one act one crime to prohibit convictions with overlapping elements there's also no conflict between rodriguez and mclaur the as some of the questioning has pointed out the problem that's led to defendants mistreating mclaurin is isolating one paragraph of the decision talking about just home invasion and residential burglary and there are a couple of misread it that way too but mcclaren was correctly decided under the one act one crime rule and the point that you know that made mclaren come out the way it did is that you count the number of offenses and you map each offense and home invasion murder has one physical act setting the victim on fire home invasion has to entering the dwelling and setting the victim on fire so the court says no problem between those two home invasion has an extra act but we know that setting the victim on fire act has already been attributed to the murder conviction for one act one crime purposes so we can't use that physical act again so then we get to the next part home invasion a residential burglary home again invasion again has two x and three in the setting the victim on fire residential burglary has won the entry so they have an overlapping act and the entry and home invasion has to be predicated on the entry because other act of setting the victim on for it has already been used up for one act one crime purposes it's already been used to support the murder conviction against a one act one crime challenge so it's a question of just reading all the offenses and all the acts together and making sure there are no more offenses than there are physical acts that helps a little bit  there are no cases on this point defendant has made up the rule the murder case is different in his right to the extent that some of those cases use one act one crime language but they are better understood as unit of prosecution cases so you need a prosecution is about whether certain conduct will support one conviction for a particular offense or multiple convictions under that statute so the question in those cases was was the defendant guilty of one murder or two murders and that's answered by the it's the same case in the cases defendant citing where a defendant is convicted of murder on multiple theories say intentional murder and felony murder to get one conviction or two he gets one because the unit of prosecution has one conviction per victim it's not a want to act one crime issue so those are about whether conduct is one offense or one conviction under a statute or multiple convictions under the same statute one act one crime is really a different issue that's about whether certain conduct amounts to can could be convictions under two distinct statutes as the cases say it's about can you carve up one physical act into two distinct offenses and and then act under that rule the the answer here is clear there are two distinct acts so two convictions are not a problem and it hasn't explained why this rule is needed to protect him against any unfairness criminal defendants already have two strong protections against overcharging it got double jeopardy which had its convictions where one offense is a lesser included of the other and they have one one crime which caps the number of offenses under just distinct statutes at the number of physical acts so there's there's no reason that any more protections are required and there's certainly no unfairness here where the defendant did to  criminal acts he got two convictions in addition to be there being no authority for the rule and no need for the rule the rule is completely unworkable it's clear from what the defendant has just argued that he has crux will is about figuring out what he thinks is the most important element of a given offense that test will never work there's no such thing as the most important element all elements are necessary for conviction if a legislature thought certain elements were important it would have made them elements what he seems to be saying is that the crux is the same as the statutory purpose and he's relying on people beyond party which was a statutory purpose placed under the old cross comparison analysis under the proportionate penalties class if that's what he's arguing for the score certainly should not adopted the statutory purpose test turned out to be completely unworkable because it would turn on how broadly you define the purpose is it to punish one element or is it punish crime in general and the court abandoned that test back in two thousand and five and charge and it said there is simply no principled objective way to define it that was talking about statutory purpose but it's the same for this crux test that defendant is proposing so the test would be unworkable and in addition to being a necessary i want other example of how the test would not make sense is defendant's position with respect to the offense of home invasion home invasion  requires two physical acts entry into a dwelling and then a act of force or violence or threat against iraq one of those could be sexual assault his position is that the entry into the dwelling is the crux of home invasion that makes no sense at least from the victim's perspective from a victim who sexually assaulted in their home certainly they would think that the more significant act there is the sexual assault not the entry into the home so that's just one example of how unworkable defense tests would just recently released this court cited cases holding that the essence of robbery is the taking improper by force so it's not something it's hard to identify it's workable and really what it comes down to is there hayman mr it starts we thank you for your arguments today or