in order to successfully prosecute lately the state was required to show ga actual knowledge of the contents of the order of protection that is at issue in this case you know normally the state might try and satisfy th he assumed because dispatch did not tell him that lately had not been served that she had been served that was the evidence that the court relied upon in fighting in the plate we had been served with you which is exactly what the court hears to convict lately here battlement a had no idea whether lately had been service or not he was operating under which he even admitted was an inference that he received from this fact his silence well there was no objection to it jerk there are still two ways so this more can reach that issue during the proceedings on counsel's post trial motion even though it wasn't clear in the post from the council discussed about three quarters of a page of transcript the taste testimony constituted nothing other than hearsay the state at that point didn't object to that argument didn't say hold it there was no objection this is the way they went ahead and allowed courts consider that so attorney may have there but i will say that it did hurt in this case this was the sole reliable evidence of the court relied upon in convicting lately of this and that so i don't think there is a strategic  comes to count two which involve least daughter are the two relevant provisions in paragraph to conflict with each other the first one says that lately must stay away or stay at least five hundred feet away from the he protected person the petitioner in this case we've been remain here as the protective person when all but then in the following portion of the order where the order defines stay away it only talks about the petitioner it says nothing about the other protected persons those two provisions cannot be read harmoniously they conflict with each other and so according to the david core the rule of on it is certainly something that we can raise on appeal it's nothing that is prohibited by the absence of an objection at trial this is closer to true or maybe the better question is how persuasive his some confusion on appeal regarding what the police phrase household of premises means it was a term used in the order of protection and on appeal court looked at that and the court said we have to look within the four corners of the order of protection to define this phrase we can't look at what was said in the trial court we can't look at the court's rationale for issuing the order action we can't look at the other pleadings that were filed in this case we have to look at the order of protection the david has asked this court to essentially refer to the elderly domestic violence act according to the state under prudence in the domestic violence act they are should be defined as a petition er just like mr ramirez is the problem with that is under this analysis and that david uses this we don't look outside of the four corners of the order of protection the order in this case or at least the statute says that a person by leeching or protection if he or she knowingly commits an act which was prohibited by a court it doesn't say a person pilots an order of protection if they do something that was prohibited by the only  violence act that's potentially the reason why the order protection in this case is is eleven pages long because it is supposed to be the extent of the provisions that set forth but least predicted it from doing in the provisions here protection as to that provision ramirez testified that at some point eight hours playing in the yard of the apartment complex but no one asked him when late we drove down the driveway where was they are we don't know we don't know if she was behind the apartment building playing with friends we don't know if there was playground equipment bushes shrubs obstruction so lately wouldn't have known the air was there there's no evidence that lately would have known that hair was there so we have that additional reasonable on top of all of this as a score knows we also filed a supplemental brief in this case raising a one act one hind issue essentially the provision or the violation of an order protection statute as i just so the petitioners are protected persons it's tied instead to the provisions of the order of protection that the court has issued the horror is or would be the victim in this case if the state ind server which again we can test that did so when we're looking at what the lately can be convicted of we have to look at the acts that she committed the charging instrument talks about an act in this case that she drove within five hundred feet of the gulf crest apartment and then count one as walker mirrors was present count two is while here are was present but it only involves a single act of one act of driving within the five hundred feet of the partner complex the state points out that there is no case directly on point here and there is not this is a somewhat novel argument but there are analogous cases if we look to the hardened case it's a case where a defendant was charged with reckless discharge of a farm because it shot towards a car where two police officers were seated he was charged with two counts one for each police officer that was in the car and he was convicted of those  says that a person is guilty when they discharge a firearm in the direction of the vehicle he knows to be occupied by a peace officer in that case it didn't matter if there was one peace officer or if there if it was a minivan of eight  officers the defendant only committed one act the same is true here the statute that prohibits the by lation of an order of protection prohibits the defendant from committing an act which is prohibited by  in this case lately committed only one act that was prohibited by the court she drove within five hundred feet of the apartment complex now it happened that ramirez an a r were in the vicinity at the time but that has nothing to do with the act in this case the court was the he was convicted of that offense he appealed and he said wait a minute i should have only been convicted of one count of unlawful restraint because i only performed the one act and the court said no you're wrong about that because the relevant statute says unlawful restraint of a person so each person that the defendant unlawfully restrained was a separate count in that case the violation of an order protection statute doesn't have any language in it that depends on how many because the record evidence was insufficient to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that she committed the crime charge that's important to understand because the past is the record evidence not simply the one item of evidence that the judge thought determining what evidence was important to decide the question of guilt and so therefore it's important to recognize that ramirez testified that the defendant was in fact served said it happened at the his experience he knows that when in order to action has not been served he would be told about that how would you like it's not all the other did say she was served but because they said they didn't mention  courthouse and some other time he was he never testified he saw her so there is no tashan on the basis that i know that that that his testimony was incompetent because he did not have personal knowledge of what he was testifying again she read that part of the order of protection that says that she has a hearing on whether plenary order of protection is going to issue research when she told security davis that he's trying to get order protection that is in new trial and then find the words new trial in briefs and why would she need a new trial that state failed to prove her guilty in the first one well they're making an argument that the evidence that the judge actually found to beyond a reasonable doubt was inadmissible mere say according to the defendant and therefore they say without that evidence she would not have been convicted this one of their argue this and their other antagonists even with that is so it was insufficient the point evidence has been a case has been proved beyond a reasonable doubt that some sort of error happens such as the improper admission of that this result is a new trial and the reason why the defendant doesn't want to neutralise because she knows it would be very easy for the state to simply trial not simply outright dictating which seems to be the only thing defendant once in is asking for but regardless of that this court still has authority to order a new trial if that is what this court decides to do whether or not the defendant requested it but i'm not prohibited her from being within five hundred feet this residence the stepmother whoever sh be there on their day while the deal is though is that she she passes by and then she comes back the child in the front yard the small yard no cars blocking the view she  hesitates slows down suppose mostly waves or points at ramirez and then she comes back and goes down the driveway and it's not only that when she's interviewed by police she this is extreme consciousness of guilt evidence she lied she says she was dropped off at the gas station and came in from the apartment from the back because she knows that if she drove by the front where the child and ramirez are that that would put her in violation of the order protections that she lies about how she got there and of course well we have surveillance video that that didn't happen and she has to admit that she lied about that very important to them so that she had just driven by gone back to her friend's house and never came back she put the pick up on the fence and she thought she was going to do i'm sorry and she comes towards that small u shape street sees the child the front yard see from here is sitting on the porch she has to get out of there she has to leave the five hundred feet down and she's not committed a crime if she leaves but if she remains or she turns around and comes back and goes down the side of the house and parks behind it and goes in the neighboring apartments while they're there that is the crime and yes she she she is not automatically chris convicted simply because she showed up into that sees them and believes she turns around and that's why then that's very important is also the fact that that they're threatening to get a search warrant or threatening to prosecute other people for obstructing justice and then she leaves and then she was caught by the police when she does try to get out and then when she told the police she says she didn't know the year of the address was protected on the currency or her protection she never denied the police and she talked contents you know what's in it by walk it's simply not reading it it's not a defense you can't say well i didn't read it i didn't know this bad yours was listed it doesn't matter she's guilty of the crime and so the law is to police the fact practice of met comus he testifies this is experience he knows about the practice if it had not been served he would have been told they might come dispatched then his duty would have been stellar and she hasn't worked action that protects this address and she needs to leave and not a notice of the record in order to proceeding or bring me an officer to testify about service and she still end up being convicted but if she's going to have that burden of showing and perhaps bring in a close fiction fish and she is not raising it here is as now with respect to the argument that this inclusion of the stairway what stairway means the defense reason deftly as the word only in here which does not actually appear in the order of protection and so sometimes trying to say that this that that means you cannot be within five hundred feet of this apartment while petitioner or they are our presence and it says specifically and we're protected persons twice and the fact that this says stay away means it's refrain from physical presence with the titian or is not constitute a limitation that would override and make a reason to make a reasonable interpretation what the defendant says is somehow that this  the favor of the defendant when when the interpretation is involving the order of protection which is something has to be liberal construed as a statute on or protections has to be liberally construe firearm and here the intent behind the the order protection statutes is to protect people tax and by extension of places where they are of the intent of these provisions the subjects of these provisions are the people it's the proximity to the point where they're apt that matters but yes it's still proximity to people and both people are subjects of the ramirez and i are both subjects of these crimes they are should be considered separate victims and is neither clear nor obvious because remember this is raised as plain error for the first time on appeal it has to be clear obvious that this is a one act one crime rule violation or for this court to even reach the issue and provide relief and it's not clear obvious because of the rule that separate convictions based on one act are proper if there are multiple victims and so the defense attempt to avoid the application of that rule by saying that only the court is the only victim is not  asked counsel for the state a very good question how would they like to be convicted of the sabbath in this case this as i listen to the state i didn't count there with the word protection there's no evidence about that in the structured room here is simply said that he believed lately was served at the courthouse that is it he could have been told that thirty and or he couldn't be that up he obviously has an interest in this case and getting lately to be convicted importantly this is all evidence that the court heard this is all evidence that the court heard in the court said that it was insufficient to sustain a conviction here that the only relevant information according to the corps that it believed as far as the knowledge issue was badly mentees testimony which again suffers from inherently flawed logic and problems to to say that a defendant can be convicted because an officer inferred from the silence of a dispatcher that the defendant had been served with a protection that doesn't meet the applicable standards here the glistening case that i cited during my initial argument talks about the required showing when knowledge is an element of the facts it cannot be based on conjecture or speculation it can't be based on what the state is asking this court to find that well here's an inference that is actually an inference of an inference based the conviction on this it doesn't work that way the state wholly failed to provide sufficient evidence in this case that lately was served with the order of protection and then we get to the problems of the only evidence of the court relied upon that again is insufficient is hearsay testimony lately was denied number two due to question anybody who had actual knowledge regarding whether she had been served or not and i'll add that the state talks about lately commenting to the officer that she didn't know that this address was a protected place if i hadn't been served with an order protection and somebody said hey did you know this was a person protected space i only said no to the fact that she denied knowing that this was a protected place or that ramirez was there doesn't mean that she was served with the order of protection and didn't read it it means that she wasn't served with the order protection at all which is the evidence in this case the going on to the am ambiguous nature of the border protection here the state comments that the other provisions somehow say the border protection from being ambiguous but the other provisions that the state cites all of them again conflict with that stay away provision and it renders the the entirety of that provision him big u s it is not possible for someone to knowingly buy a late something that is so confusing you can't understand it and that the to make that same finding finally the state says that this would be the first court to say that the state has waived something by not objecting to it when defense counsel didn't make a a objection during trial and didn't put in a supposed trial motion i don't know whether this would be the first court to say that or not but if the state want to do a jack to the defense counsel's argument regarding the hearsay during the post proper seedings their time to do that was during the