reducing her sentence from forty years many of the seans in the statute are not disputed this afternoon i wanted to discuss the remaining showings in the perceived procedural objections raised by the state in this appeal the state does not  and once subsection b five was passed that disability risk was removed and angela filed her just in within those two years since she's satisfied showings of subsection b five she should be a large which are guilty plea defendant's petition without providing her with an opportunity to respond to the state's motion are subject harmless error analysis and there was no error in this case much less if there was error it was harmless the st argument the defense counsel's proffered is that is considering if you look at danny st of all the legal disability that was discussed was only discussed in dicta it wasn't an official holding and noble other case has cited banneker that opposition despite that case being nearly thirty years old the statute on statutes defines a legal disability and it defines it in terms of a mental illness a loss of faculty by the petitioner or even subject to potentially drug abuse and if you look at a number of cases citing  disability that counsels referring to is beatle in a different context a different type of disability and one it's not currently recognizes by this court if this court were to adopt defendant's reading of a legal disability it would completely eradicate to plead statute that didn't exist well in this case it's i would call a disadvantage but not a disability if we look at people b guerrero is an illinois supreme court case and it says that defendants are required to bring all claims regardless of whether the law is in favor of them or not and if we look at prior common law i cited people b smith in the brief one thousand nine hundred and ninety three case in which a mother had fed caustic acid to her child which ended up resulting d in the child's death in an effort to paint a fraudulent products liability suit against a baby food manufacturer and the defendant in that case did raise domestic abuse as a mitigating factor in her sentencing and so at her original negotiated plea defendant was represented by counsel she was not pro se which makes counsel's reference to her only having a great education really irrelevant it wasn't considered by her at that time because she wanted to get the best deal that judgments that are less than two years old it doesn't and it doesn't allow for a petition to be brought when a new law has been created within the past two years so that's st of all to fourteen a one is just not a vehicle for that the b five procedural vehicle specifically designed to fall under the two year time his requirement of twenty one thousand four hundred and one we can see that from the plain language of the statute which did not create the savings clause and also by the comments of representative mitchell which  to discredit by just stating he's simply one legislature legislator but he's actually the house sponsor of that bill he's also on the judicial committee in the legislature and he's on the criminal law subcommittee that actually matters that what would would you agree that battered women are operating under duress of course in certain circumstances they are it's a factual determination right and i mean the literature discusses it is as we all know and isn't the rest one of the exceptions under fourteen a one c the running of the two years can be a factor to discuss but here defendant did not allege that she was under duress at the time and the facts show that her husband wasn't even was given an opportunity to mend either washing well at the time that she entered into her plea she was allowed to argue that she had acted under you know some extraneous pressure but  simply not available to her as a defense in this case with regard to this in that context i don't think that the type of duress that's being considered is the type of arrest it would suffer from domestic battery only in the context of you need to be under immediate direct that's preventing you from bringing a petition not to rest when you committed the crime but arrest that prevents you from bringing the petition the defendant had twenty years before she filed the petition to bring it and she never did so i think duress can be considered but it's a long context the press under this defendant's facts and as i was saying representative mitchell said in his statements in the rd debate that this law was intended for to go back for two years with the judgments of these individuals and to give some of these women the opportunity to come to grips with how domestic violence may have affected them and may have possibly caused them to be more culpable than they otherwise would have been but this was not written to give every defendant for all time they could have potentially been a victim of domestic violence an opportunity to bring that claim now it still has to be within a two year time limitation and we can give further insight on that fact from the b ten subsection requirement i think it's clear based on the plain language of the intent of the law d and the subsequent similar law that deals with similar subject matter that this was not intended to allow every defendant to raise these claims and as i touched on earlier prior defendants and in previous cases in the state have used domestic violence as a mitigating factor ignorance of the law is no excuse in this case so she would also legally  be aware of that even if she did not raise that claim and with regard to be five there's no chance the trial court would have reduced the defendant sense in this case we consider the actual facts of it as we as i mentioned the defendant's husband came home she brought the victim with him he stabbed him over a two one hundred dollars spirit and the victim helped cover up the body initially she took him down to the basement placed him in an unplugged freezer and left him there ronald then left for several hours leaving the defendant home with the body the victim stirred in a rather gruesome manner the defendant took a hammer and a knife and bludgeoned and stabbed the victim to put him back in the freezer and then shockingly asked her thirteen year old stepson to sit on his on the door of the freezer to hold it down so that while they waited for that they come to die if that wasn't bad enough she took his money from his a t m card and then helped ronald later conceal the body by burying it in the back yard there were numerous opportunities during that several hours where the victim or the defendant could have sought help for the victim she could have called the police who would have then protected her from any further threat against ronald but she chose not to do so not just because she was afraid of domestic violence but because she was in this for the gain of the money and also she wanted to get away with the prime that's why she acted the way she did not because at some earlier point she may have been victimized and on that point defend defended in her reply brief seem to imply that the state has a lack of deference for victims of domestic violence and i think it be further from the truth statements the best domestic violence to be a blight on society and we bring to justice people who commit domestic violence against others read which is a th district case at the time defendant filed her brief it's since been ruled on by the supreme court and supreme court has indicated that if it's used to or want as a vehicle to get to a motion to vacate guilty plea or most motion to withdraw a guilt plea however it's in a limited context of an actual innocence claim so even if this court were to disagree with all the various reasons the state has proposed proffered is why this opinion or why this petition should have been dismissed your only available remedy is a limited remain and simply to allow the defendant the opportunity to reply to the state's motion and if your honour's have no further questions stay would ask at the trial that this court affirmed the trial  two years the court went through the u s supreme court case and the legislature legislation that had overturned that case it was absolutely crucial to deciding whether it was timely filed so it is it is binding precedent on that point and although it hasn't been either filed by ronald her abuse or sometimes he even signed them himself so he controlled her legal proceedings up through i believe two thousand and fifteen so he continued to have an abusive relationship with her after the crime and you can see it i don't want to repeat the words that he said but you see it in the exhibits he attached his very verbally abusive to her that said it than so i think that would be certainly relevant evidence in terms of determining whether she