armed patrol criminal predicated on two prior felony convictions and six counts of unlawful use of possession of a weapon by a felon predicated on one prior felony conviction while be happy to answer any questions that you may have today i will be focusing on argument one first the state failed to prove mr hamilton guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of either armed criminal or unlawful use of a weapon by a felon for two reasons first the certified copy of conviction for the two thousand and three armed robbery list the name james hamilton and not william hamilton of the defendant the second reason that the state failed to prove that mr hamilton was not guilty of either arms control criminal no no justice taylor and while being knowledge that the council did indeed stipulate to both of the certified convictions coming into evidence mr hamilton would argue that the stipulation was rather to  one if you look there mr hamilton when asked if he would stimulate defense counsel says first yes certified copy then when asked about the second copy of certified conviction he says yes simply yes so that the defense counsel is not responsible for the elements of the status required to prove regardless of whether defense counsel that they regard with the whether defense counsel stipulated the state still have the burden to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that mr hamilton had these  certified convictions because they are elements of both arms patrol criminal as well as unlawful use of a weapon by a felon well is it your position that the state would actually need to have the certified copies of convictions present in open court to agree that an individual has a prior conviction yes justice nick right the reason that we say that is because in people the west it states a certified copy of the defendant conviction may be offered as proof of an underlying conviction and if the name on the certified record is the same as the name of the defendant on trial or bubble presumption of identity arises so the certified copies of conviction are usually how these prior predicate offenses  crimes like arms but all criminal and unlawful use of weapons by a felon well i agree with you there i agree that that's normally how it's done but i don't agree that if the parties and to in enter into a stipulation that you know the documents have to be there in order for the parties to reach an agreement regarding place that's not right to say well and even with that understanding the fact is that the documents were there and one of the document states james hamilton and said william hamilton now as i just covered in people the west there are a rebuttable presumption of identity arises if the name on the certified copy of conviction is the same as the name of the defendant on trial here that did not happen before the two thousand and three armed robbery conviction there was no rebuttable presumption of identity james hamilton is not the same name as william hamilton which is what my client used at trial and people be ground the difference of an initial was enough to defeat the presumption and here we have a completely different first name james than hamilton is the same last name however that's also a common name so again there are a bubble presumption of identity was not trigger even if it had been triggered the state was then required to provide additional evidence to show that the james hamilton listed in that certified copy of conviction was the same person william hamilton that was on trial even latest appeal ation may have to do that even with the stipulation because again the stipulation we argue based on the excerpt from g want to one was to the admissibility and not the information contained in the certified convictions there was no way to link that two thousand and three armed while mr hamilton did testify to that he did not testify to specifics he did not say i have a two thousand armed robbery conviction he did not get any information on the class of offense so all we have from mr hamilton is very general information basically establish we do know their felony but very general information and under the arms visual criminal statute there the state has to prove the following every element first that the defendant receives sole possessed or transferred a robbery that it be a forcible felony and we i don't know that there's a debate about armed robbery being a forcible no that's not a debate the debate is whether or not that certified copy of conviction established that it was william hamilton rather than jane hamilton and what list is which is what is listed on the certified copy of conviction all i want is just briefly go back to the stipulation that it's actually in the record and here's what it says the state seeks to admit we have a case number zero three c r two four eight seven three the defendant was convicted of the offense of armed robbery that conviction was angered march thirtieth two thousand by the defendant was sentenced to seven years so stipulated defense counsel yes the certified copies so isn't there enough information in that stipulation about this particular fancy armed robbery that it was this defendant it occurred on the thirtieth of march two thousand and five and that he was convicted of armed robbery and since the seven years no because the name of the certified copy of conviction was not correct and again the defense coun different that when they are green that this defendant was convicted of bad offense they don't really mean that that he's just stipulating that the documents can be admit it but not that the information contained in them is actually correct and again i'd just like to reiterate that it is not the defendant's responsibility to assist the prosecution by signaling gaps in the state's evidence despite the simulation despite the failure to object because they were elements of the on patrol criminal and unlawful use of a weapon than the state was required to prove those beyond a reasonable doubt that is not mr hamilton's birth and that was the burden of the state and they did not meet that based on the two thousand and three armed robbery conviction listing james to look at this for whether or not they are most here now because it's a fish a sufficiency of the evidence argument and that burden again does not shift to mr hamilton it has to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt now and primarily because the information is contained in the present investigation report that was report was prepared after a trial it was not introduced at trial as evidence and the states use the vat evidence now at the appellate level i state you know miss you have referenced the fact that mr hamilton did testify which we had knowledge at no point that the state cross examine him to get more information regarding any of the offenses to ask him about specific years or the classes if we read the the record sort of and if you could explain a little bit further what i'm asking you is was it ever the defense position in this case that he wasn't the individual that was the defendant that had been convicted of armed robbery and the possession of a controlled during the case was more of what you just named that he didn't live at that particular location but again in order to be convicted under either of those statutes beyond reasonable doubt it has to be proven so we don't believe that the fact that defense counsel then particularly make that argument  defeats the claim at this point the fact is that mr hamilton was not proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt and i was saying in other cases the state has taken the opportunity to provide additional evidence if there isn't a name that does not match so in people being white there was testimony from additional v witnesses also bell coleman and walker and all of those cases the state either had additional witnesses or had additional like id cards or something else additional evidence to show that that indeed was the person in the start of my conviction despite the difference between the names with those one stipulation case in bell there was actually a stipulation but that was different because not only defense counsel stipulate to the that is necessary since the stipulation is precluded from being attacked or contradicting any facts to which he or she stipulated no in our case it was clear that the intent of the parties was to remove the issue of whether or not these were mr hamilton's prior convictions otherwise the defense attorney would not have stipulated to them being that mr hamilton's prior convictions whether or not the name was different on it that was included in the indictment is in people's exhibit number eight that was in the stipulation now the question of whether a presumption of adin in the arises if the names are the same  is there's no question about it if the name of the same there's a presumption of identity but here there's nothing in any case that says the only way a presumption that i didn't see a rises is if the names of the same a presumption i have identity is arises two for two reasons first there's nothing in the record to reflect that the guess defense counsel gave at trial was any way in any way less than up one hundred percent yes we stipulate to that he did not qualify his yes in any way he had the opportunity to do that he did not object in any way he had the opportunity to do that when he did he said yes you do it from the record directly that at trial and that's what was stipulated to and the judge acknowledged he would be using it for the purpose of going towards those the element in those two crimes so the appeal defense counsel is trying to narrow the attack on the admissibility of the evidence and people vs was tells us that what's happening here is that the depended on only on appeal is raising the question of whether of proper foundation was laid for the admissibility of the certified copies and that is subject to the ordinary rules of a waiver forfeiture they did not object to challenge it and preserve the issue in the first trial motion it should not be before this court that is improper it is not a sufficiency of the evidence claim it because it's not asking whether or not it was enough to prove it it's asking whether or not they were properly entered because of the name there's two there's two convictions at issue here in although those in cou didn't address the second one properly from the briefs you become aware that the ninety three c r zero four three three  was a class one that was entered on august sixth one thousand nine hundred three that that the state has to have that certified happy with them in order for the stipulation to be was later used and introduced or maybe i'm talking about people's exhibit tap another conviction that was used for impeachment purposes after he testified the state introduced two convictions for purposes of impeachment after he testified my question is if the parties agree that a defendant has a conviction occurring on a certain date or a certain facts and they receive a certain sense or that it was a particular class is there any requirement that they have to have that document in the record that's the purpose of the stipulation if you're not agreeing to something anyway that's my question exactly that that you one question and so we can assume that defense counsel read and stipulated to it because he agreed with it will is there a problem with the stipulation that it only refers to the judge and in addition in regard to case number ninety three seok to satisfy the i am grateful criminal element the defendant was convicted of possession of cold substance with intent to live or a class two offense and that conviction was oral memorialization for the record for a possible appeal doesn't mean that it hadn't been seen agreed to stipulated by of both parties acknowledged by the the judge and then eventually entered into evidence correctly if we look at people versus king and the the nature of these gun offenses the court does not want to give one defendant more time or less time because the immunisation found for one defendant was outside of the gun and the ammunition found another within it was inside the gun so they don't buy briquet the sentencing each each entirely distinguishable well in our case this is a stipulated this is a bench trial there was a stipulation in people vs brown who was a jury trial the defense attorney on that in that case objected vehemently to entering certified in the phone book and the jury wasn't instructed asked of the presumption of identity in this case there was no jury there was a stipulation to the certified copies of conviction in the identity so the presumption of identity identity element w completely miss characterize the only thing that stipulated to in that case was a certified copy of this position and that's why it was that issue and i have cases completely the inverse of that so for all these reasons we ask that you defend those conviction i just like to cover a few key points first quickly again the leaves reporters not all the information contained in that for the reasons i covered in my opening statement second the state reference the fact that the cases that i cited in my opening were distinguishable faith based on one fact that it was a jury trial versus the bench that does not change the state's burden now i'd like to address woods we would argue that woods is actually not a positive this two thousand and five case is actually distinguishable because in that case the defendant was challenging the chain of custody chain of custody is not an element as the certified copies of convictions are elements in this case for arms which will criminal and for unlawful use of a weapon b dealt with introducing an actual object while in this case the certified copies of convictions are not objects in the same sense their self authenticating documents again nothing in the record indicates that there was anything wrong or deficient with them so we would argue that the stipulation was because they were proper certified copies of conviction the difference as illustrated through an example with defendant stipulating to the chain of custody and was is that there was a link missing again the chain of custody is not an element of the crime board's also mentions the fact that when there is a complete breakdown so for example and was the inventory number was the same the amount of drugs was the same there was no complete breakdown here we have a complete breakdown different name different case number even though the state referenced the fact that yes this list in exhibit eight if you take a very close look the case number that's actually mentioned in the indictment gets a very brief mention on page two we know nothing about the class of offense we know nothing about the sentence so we would argue that was not just positive for those reasons there was a complete breakdown and mr hamilton should not have to suffer through that because of the state dealing with the cases in the way they did then you didn't argue this  your opening because i know you want to focus on what we certainly can't cut you off but it is it your position that if someone possesses like three different guns and they're recovered at one time th can be separate convictions for each gun yes we would agree with the dissent in people v anthony that speaks to the existing ambiguity in the statute still so our position just to run briefly through each of the convictions that mr hamilton was convicted of we would argue that two of the three on to patrol criminal should be vacated and the state has conceded that in previous cases people be davis and people be carter that were those reprieve the amendments to th thick i'm not quite sure your honor but i don't believe they were well doesn't the statute indicate that the intent is that if you have multiple pepin's that each possession of a weapon shall constitute a single and separate event on its face it appears that way but we would argue that there are a couple of problems with the statute first there's no distinction between whether each firearm does that reference a loaded firearm or does that reference and unloaded fire again about loaded versus what about the statute when it says that each firearm shall constitute a separate single and separate offense maybe single not in there but a separate  intent to penalize people for having more than one gun we would argue that if they were found in the same actor the same transaction the now all of these guns were found together the same date the same apartment it's it's permissible to have people and big guns or multiple firearms while it's true that the legislature does know how to make that distinction as an argument or opening brief the original amendment to the statue may have intended that but the amendment that was actually passed into law did not so that would be our argument regarding your question there you know that anthony case that you disagree with that was that was never appealed by the state of illinois that i'm not number in the indictment that was not the number listed in the conviction and as we see from the stipulation on page g want to won this state for whatever reason simply stopped at ninety three c r and did not state the rest of the case number of runners our position is mr hamilton again should not be made to suffer for the failure of the state to properly introduce a certified convictions for these reasons we would ask that all of his onto patrol criminal an unlawful use of a weapon by a felon convictions be reversed outright if there are no further questions thank you for your