objection and the proceedings are inconsistent with the merits of final judgment no question here that the proceedings were inconsistent with the merits of the final judgment it's a motion to reconsider sentance been argued that is sentence should be reconsidered reduced the state argued that it should be upheld presented arguments that it was within the range this aggravation mitigation where adequately consented and so it should be affirmed arguing that against the defense motion wearing counsel and i don't have a dispute is whether or not there was active participation without objection and i submit there was no objection here the court questioned whether the motion was timely at the time it was called for hearing and the state did not have jeff the state said it's up to the courts n the parties actively participate in the state didn't object injection was practically invited by the court in pointing out the fact that this was not filed within thirty days at that point the state could have stood up and ten when we essential warnings in this case the record is clear that the defendant was advised of the possibility warned of the possibility of trial absentia there is no transcript showing on the record  warnings being given there to court orders in the record where any of that there is preprinted form orders with probably twenty different boxes you can check off one of the essential warning boxes checked off on to a the court orders one of those there is a transcript for the tape and essential warnings more are not given on a date so a court order that was issued for the summer thirty first two thousand and seven days is directly contradicted by the transcript of what actually happened in court the other signs and it does have a box with warnings on it to include the possibility of trial and censure there's some dispute over whether britain and modish inside of onset are sufficient in garner the illinois supreme court has held that with regard to the third issue of the supreme court rule for thirty one b it's tough to keep track of what's going on with all the cases that have been coming out on the supreme court rule for thirty one b n orders previous iterations from the supreme court and the threshold of your honor's being able to reverse a conviction on a reasonable doubt argument and certainly close it down sevens in the entire case with regard to the reasonable doubt is she only what we have here is a conviction on a child predator a criminal sexual assault the most serious charge in this case will be evidence warning that conviction the only evidence of penetration comes in at trial via a prior inconsistent statement found substantial right clean air on a four thirty one evaluation so that at least is going to be addressed by the supreme court on that case you believe has been fully briefed on and checked in our new piece today and i think it's just a waiting argument likely to be set we don't see it here defense counsel clearly wasn't sure and was wrong about what the case is say on in terms of this continuing jurisdiction but the state has the obligation to object it's nice to be on the side of arguing lever because i'm usually on the other side where it is being argued up and down and back and forth it was not preserved by trial counsel for the defendant in the lower court this was not preserved by the prosecutor in terms was argument on and there was the jury was told if you consider the fact his failure to appear for trial as evidence of consciousness of guilt there is case law that says that that can be argued to the jury that is not the same as the defendant's right not to testify which is what was ignored by the court statements to the jury in this case the that was the part of four thirty one the that was entirely left out the movement has a right not specified doesn't have to be doesn't childer trial you can use that as evidence of consciousness of guilt but he doesn't have an obligation to testify and regardless of obviously he doesn't show the trial it can't testify that the jury should have been told the four thirty one b admonishments were deficient i think they were especially deficient because it's a case where we don't have an offender who's present and the jury is not told that he doesn't have to testify with regard to closely balanced evidence i close close enough this court should be looking at and and finding i think clean air in this case i'm on the most serious charge even if the evidence isn't particularly close and again i think it's close i'm goes other charges i think  questions about the credibility of the witnesses in light of their motives in light of conflicts in their testimony i think it's certainly close enough on all of them but until these close on the most serious charge here and i would find it difficult to was it's not close on the other three so that's fine we are told we don't consider an error because it is close on the most serious charge here on the charge and certainly the conviction that certainly has the greatest