good morning ladies and gentlemen part of their discretion by unilaterally without any motion from the parties unilaterally questioning the constitutionality of the statutes the remove their discretion and in both cases the search or alternately use their power to review the actively curious because the comparison statute is no longer valid however it's important to see as well that the actual finding of the circuit court that there was identical offenses in this case was simply wrong and the pla you in our analysis of this this case do we need to weigh in on the reasoning offered by the trial court or are we looking at the new world  that any decision by a court of the state that invalidates a law does create a bit of chaos is not the word but it creates a disruption in the law and the expectations of the community that the court was required to give a one of three year sentence with no possibility of a however this sentence of yours not that's provided by d two is not shocking in that it was being sentence and remove the possibility of probation and simply require the sentence that was already possible but the error in the search for its finding on this point is seen in in the narrowness of the throat of this reasoning because what the circuit we're focused on here it was entirely the lack of discretion to give probation and it should be noted that the circuit court here did not have a problem with sentencing this defendant for this offense to prison throwing entirely on the lack of probation as an option however this court has already rejected the idea that a mandatory minimum prison sentence itself can be shocking in cases such as mccarty where a fifteen year penalties clause here should be rejected because ultimately this penalty of one to three years in prison is in proportion to the seriousness of the events and this can be seen from the ordered escalation of any of these the own oil legislature has provided eighteen to twenty year olds with void however the plain language of the floyd act itself refutes this point it is simply put not impossible double negative may not be simply what but it is possible for eighteen to but it's also important to see that this is not the only contingency in the void actor eighteen to twenty year olds there is also for granted just to review of their appeal to the director of the state police and this court reviewed and handling the boy back and how of people killed every year by guns and it's also clear that this sense in provision is rationally related to that public safety risk where the circuit board excuse me where the legislature recognized that it are in public and they have that gun ready to fire there is an elevator risk to the public safety in that circumstance and the circuit but the owner of legislature properly used its power to attempt to deter would not be an appropriate at the stage of the seating at this point in the proceedings it is clear from this record that this defendant has never applied to get a for this defendant as have multiple chances to tell the court   well then it would be a factual hearing on that basis of whether or not the state director the director of the state police properly denied his application so your position would be he could be churched regardless i'm saying that he didn't even if he was eighteen to twenty years old didn't he have a board you're you would would you want we are still here human a defendant and i'm sorry i don't understand well i'm just saying you're position today is you know we don't if there is a certain point where any under any licensing scheme in particular under the second amendment where the second united states supreme court in the case of district of columbia versus heller there are  longstanding traditions of categorical categorical and i guess some people simply have from the outset of this country's founding didn't recognize to not qualify to get god it has long been recognized that legislature intended it to apply even if there's only one conviction let's you don't need of a b a and a three c but the further language would be to also states that so long as the factors list read that that she had the state would have to prove one or two and if the state didn't prove either one of them that's the end of the discussion but if they did prove let's say two then they'd also have to prove for aggravation one of the other facts that's correct so how do you read the statu unconstitutional if that would be unconstitutional you're on that along with itself presumably that would invalidate statute but it's the people's position that because the offense is not have to prove something else i see in my time is up thirty two he would be found not guilty of any felony at all that's the first reason why the judge is constitutional ruling is moot there's another reason but it's moot in this court after but at the end of the first argument three and of the plain language duty to is required in order to get that sentance it's hard to imagine two provisions that are more intertwined and subsections three a and e two and in fact the state's opening brief they say that it's a combine but the fact the matter is there is no combined offense and even if there was a pathetically such a combined offense that combined offense cannot can never be found in this particular case because of the way the state charged state were entirely limited to the sentencing provision he never found any of the individual counts unconstitutional he didn't say three a's unconstitutional three c or three i in the state admits in its opening agreed that he never found i unconstitutional but what he did was he entered conviction for a misdemeanor if he if this judge believed that if this judge if this was not a acquittal the judge would have been required to enter conviction with rehab because he never found that provision unconstitutional he decided at the end of the day after this long process and it was a very long process after his finding that the sentence was unconstitutional mr mosley was guilty other misdemeanor and how do we know that it's from the record the oral pronouncing of the court the controlling order in this case on the last day of court he said not only would done to mostly not be sent to prison but enter a conviction under those counts because he found time to mostly guilty of a misdemeanor is that the reality when a court finds a sentencing provision unconstitutional in other words don't we see cases where the court might find it under proportional i mean this is something that sentencing provision unconstitutional and then the court goes on to apply in the prior sentencing provision yes is that the judge found the sentence unconstitutional entered conviction on the charge of the fence and then gave what he deemed the judge deemed to be a constitutional this court has never reached the constitutionality the sentencing provision where there was not a conviction injured on the corresponding offense similarly this court has never increased someone's conviction after judgement was a final judgment was injured by the trial court on a lesser included offense that's why this was vacated all of the felonies and that is an acquittal under evan's us from porky's last year under the illinois constitution it's a strange situation to be sure mr lyons but on the other hand isn't there another way of looking at it is the sole reason that the trial court vacated the convictions on the greater offenses was his belief that the sentences were unconstitutional i mean there's no dispute about that because you believe the sentiment constitute yeah absolutely right and although we in a novel way to approach it i mean as we look at it the conviction in the sentence for the lesser included offense does flow directly from that fine if the load in the mental process it is judged it wasn't the reduction of the conviction to misdemeanor was not legally necessary and the judge's constitutional ruling and the record makes plain that this judge not only intended that mr moti would not be sent to prison again constitutional sentence this judge made it clear in the record at the end of the job by having a felony conviction and if you have a misdemeanor offense you can apply for a card when you're twenty one those are not the statements of a judge who is merely declining to send someone to prison on an unconstitutional sensing provision those are the statements of a judge who after this long mental process decided mr mosley would not have a felony conviction at all that is an acquittal under evidence in the the illinois constitution and that's why this court l jurisdiction to reach this appeal was there any finding that be evidence is inspiration of a felony the judge's pronouncement on the last day of court was such a finding now the judge a trial judge is invested with the authority to make a determination of guilt or innocence without making specific factual findings and the trial judge has the authority to change his mind at any point while he retains jurisdiction acquittal and i would also add here your honour's that the state knew the state knew that there were six felony counts here the state knew that the constitution really had nothing to do with at least two of those cows if not all of this or just down and they did not a motion to stay the judgment ending the rule six zero three appeal the state about a final judgment to be entered on a misdemeanor conviction and that removed any rule six the three  court has to reach the constitutionality the sentencing of using that ruling is no longer before the board i would add also your honor that the state may have a very legitimate concern that having a trial court ruling out the then he changed his mind and i'm the last day of court at some point after you five f you wrote that written order on the country's now distancing provision he not only said the sense is unconstitutional he said mr mosley would be guilty of a misdemeanor and he made that plain in do not find the entire statute unconstitutional and we know that from a few paragraphs earlier but that's what the order ends up say a few paragraphs really under the heading rule eighteen findings the judge specifically said the penalty perscribe id to when sub only allows a state to appeal a finding of unconstitutionality there was no finding that any of the individual felony counts was unconstitutional in this case and that's most clear your honor by the fact that the under twenty one provision subsection three i was never mentioned in the constitutional ruling it's plain that this judge at the end of the day decided not only would not send mostly to prison but that he would be guilty of a misdemeanor what's wrong with the state this court reinstates all four of the remaining possible felony convictions he can never be sentenced under d to because the four counts that would be reinstated make no mention of the factual allegation that would change under three day that would trigger the d to under due to the legislature was saying where to find is found guilty under three a and where he's found guilty under three c he's not eligible for probation i think this court's decision agatha which struck down three  then means that subsection d two is cannot be triggered in any case but this morning i reach and even go that far because it can never be triggered in this particular case and maybe some hypothetical case where it could be triggered if the state charge it that smoke he was in one thousand year old college student with no prior convictions and no juvenile education he had been shot twice before here's a bullet in his leg and his sister six year old sister was shot and killed the judge at the end of the proceedings found him guilty of a mystery here in sense into probation he's done with his probation and according to the circuit court this case is now closed the state now in this appeal is asking you not only to increase this felony it increases this case for the first time this there was no procedural due process claim and in the defendant's brief in this case the defendant did not challenge the indictment at any time before our or argument we'd ask you to reject this claim as weight and something one other thing that counsel noted was the circuit court's findings in the the allegation they made in their brief that the findings were limited to of the sense in provision alone but if you look at the circuit court's order c and the punishment for scribe by d two are unconstitutional based on the proportion of its clause if that ruling was limited just to the proportion of only there would not need to be a  cited this is the reason why it was hell to make a constitutional rule the circuit court in this case at no point in time ever found that there was a factual insufficiency in this case and repeatedly found that the facts were sufficient to support the rather be worth noting in this case that the circuit court's ruling did not change on the time it issued this rule eighteen order to the time that it actually announced the order which was on the same day the circuit court issued the order on that day and or for the reasons stated in that rule eighteen order i am doing finding these provisions unconstitutional and the roy keane order itself enters the misdemeanor conviction weapon is unconstitutional the defendant here is effectively arguing that because the circuit court made a mistake in its remedy or in a more charitable sense gave the defendant an equitable remedy  should then benefit from but however this court in the case of people versus dixon cited by the people in their brief as one reason this court can reinstate the defense felony convictions here  dealt with a case where the court reversed the defendant's convention and the circuit court had previously convicted defendant of other counts but had not entered the sentence on those  because of effectively a technicality those convictions would just be washed away without any find that they were not valid convictions and that is the same instance here mischievous results as this court said would result if these valid convictions were swept away by a rule eighteen order which the defendant now admits should be vacated because it simply invalidate the circuit court's ruling recent if there are no more questions that people would ask this order to ensure that gravity based on our arguments here as well as those in our readers thank thank you thomas on face number one one five eight seven two people