act one crime purposes because it was based on the same physical act driving a car and provided the basis for his driving under the influence conviction even if the conduct which led to the convictions that this court finds was not part of a single for both offices there for the only single physical act that we have here is driving a car had the state intended to charge multiple conduct they simply could have done so either one at one crime analysis reminds the state that they need to make more careful in the charging instruments it doesn't prevent them from charging multiple different conduct again these principles do not come into play until the following conviction of the proposition that the act of one act one crime purposes must be a culpable criminal act in fact to which the state does not respond in order to hold that a lot of the scorched or students who go to other crimes will completely go out the window and s sexual assault cases the act for the purpose of sexual assault cases one act one crime is the act of sexual penetration the state can charge multiple different theories in their indictment multiple different conduct if certain statutory factors are present similarly with possession of a weapon you know w possessing a weapon was not a criminal act it doesn't become criminal conduct until the state charges different series here driving a car does not have to be a criminal culpable a always kind of suggested that this must be called the black estate he never even charged to cut the black's state charge driving while intoxicated and driving with a rowboat grayson's intoxication is not an action you may need to perform certain actions to get in a state of intoxication and intoxication is simply a condition similarly having a revoke license is just a status your way performed actions to get to the status but again having a revoked license is not in that itself an outward overt there is improper lane usage improper speeding the state could see convictions again the state can charge whatever it likes and get convictions on what about rights but depending on what the treasury instrument size and depending on the conduct that was prescribed at trial is going to revoked that would withstand scrutiny again i had to beg the question back to the state seeks to do that at the bare minimum the need to charge that conduct i'm not sure if it would survive this court scrutiny but if the state wanted to charge between madison in washington one violation and then between i'm washington and the canal another violation they can do that and that will be a different argument yes but in this case they didn't again the state can't let tractable go back and say we we can find that link to the lesser included offense despite the fact that again as in this court seven people can close and even if an element of the lesser included is not specifically included in the greater as long as it's reasonable to infer that the conduct of the greater is in the conduct of the lesser and that would be a lesser included offense again the charging instrument approach looking at how the state prosecuted this case looking how the state tried this case state tribe his case as the simple act of driving had the state wanted to do it differently they intoxication when he was president of the state wanted to charge him with drinking a glass of beer in the car while he was driving but after drinking the beer would be a separate action but to get to the state of intoxication he's secretary of state has suspended it again you can walk around without a driver's license that the but when you drive a car that's the action that will trigger something like the action of having a gun if you possess a gun doesn't necessarily unless you don't have a foid card the action of not having a full card and have it south is not the action of the act of possession of a guy who was here in the action is driving a car immediately prior to getting in the car and having a revoked license as a result of previous convictions for dui defendant had forfeited his right to drive and the moment he got in the car the moment he put the  moment he drove those were two separate acts this court in people versus king just stated that an act is any overt of outward manifestation that renders a different offense offense has  defined as a conduct by prison or by a fine fear for a criminal act the fact that the term culpable criminal have been not used in all the cases is is not enough to make this case this case and these acts of the defendant not culpable the defendant committed aggravated dui when he got into the car and he was intoxicated as a result of smoking marijuana as a matter of fact the facts demonstrated there were there was a half smoked joint found underneath the driver seat so the fact that he was not smoking marijuana or drinking in a car at the time he was driving does not render him not guilty question appropriately your inference in terms of this case and this is a unique case because driving is not a crime but when someone does not have a license as a criminal act people verses to paste this quoting discredit to the second district addressed the same type of faxes or in this case and they found that second district court found that if you're driving under the hand he did not have a driver's license he also had the disqualifying act of smoking pot i mean those are two acts that he did as he was getting in the car right the time he was getting in the car when he the key in the car and when he started driving he was not allowed to drive because he did not have a proper license and he was under the influence and impaired as a result of the marijuana let's go back to the gun here so if someone doesn't  driving and there are strong public policy arguments that a person who's been honorable price and is not allowed to drive should not be permitted to escape a conviction because i just had to have a piece of paper i was supposed to have  that prejudice to defend him would occur if you take this one part we're going to charge him for speeding from as this council stated from madison to washington in this part from jackson to commute i think then you're getting into position where the charging instrument shows that there was a different intent on the part of the state charge and no separate stabbings we're going to look at one act in this court and other appellate courts half the people position in this case is that the defendant when he entered that car he had committed to this call fine and coppell acts to finish and not be able to hide behind the king doctrine and say i was just driving he was driving under the influence and he was driving as a result of being on look at the charging instrument the information in this case and clearly the intent and the weight of the charging instrument was written were two separate acts aggravated dui driving while under the influence of do people versus being shot those are not elements of a crime those are merely sentencing enhanced factors therefore they cannot be play a role in determining whether driving on a revoked license is a lesser included offense of aggravated dui both the defendant found guilty then you get to the sentencing enhancement factors and that's where you see the language of driving on a revoked license it's also important when you look at the charging instrument in this case the chip count the defendant his prior convictions that's correct trying to and what the people are asking is that the court look at this it applied the rationale in many cases where does one act one crime because the logical inferences or the saying the reason judge me was the sa physical act and again as the state was saying and driving a car is not a crime the act of sexual penetration is not a crime until you so the state charges statutory factors the out of only having a gun in your possession fir