a motion to reconsider sentence in the first paragraph he notes that is it is a pro se motion that is filed with the circuit court and because most of appeal had been filed prior to that day the circuit court struck the notice means per se motion for a hearing that hearing was ultimately this you know just and you know some appeal was filed the court complied with the requirements of all six of six be it did exactly what it was supposed to do host judgment motion directly or it can be filed by an attorney or if not represented a defendant proceeding pro se in this case the record i think clearly shows the tremaine was not represented by counsel time filed his motion and the status failed is that because tremaine according to the state was represented by counsel at the time yes i'm sorry the court should not have said should not have filed remains pro se motion should not have struck in the notice of appeal and the this involved in the actual testing of the alleged cocaine that remained was charged with bringing in the state of illinois but somewhat of a loaded statement and so i just want to repeat what we're trying to break down a little bit the that's correct the evidence was closely balanced this case where somebody steria stude sure of cocaine into your client spared the evidence was closely bound and the reason i severe charge was controlled substance trafficking so they have to prove the tremaine brought a controlled substance of knowingly rather controlled substance of the methamphetamine into the state of illinois and based on the charging instrument they proclaim that substance was cocaine and he brought in over one hundred grams of that substance in the state if they fail to prove any one of those elements there's a deficiency case there was testimony regarding you know from whose castillo as i said out in the in the first argument that he believes he saw from a packaging some substance about the videos and sort of the cooking go ok what is right by they are even yours made all cases are closely ballots it could never be a case that was i would not i would not say that and the reason i would not say that is this is a much different case in the state so that's it so facto plainer it is it renders the evidence i would say more than closely balance and the reason i'm saying that is if if there is a confrontation clause problem which i believe that there is in  state was cocaine but further than that and i think more importantly for this argument there would be no evidence that the possessed over nine hundred four hands of that substance and the sentencing range in the classification a felony in this case is but it seems to me that your only shot is a second prong argument and that's what i want to ask you about because the second prong of the play their doctor dr has been repeatedly quoted with pla right to confrontation exactly the same are you making here if in light of this is sumption the defendant is unable to carry his burden of persuasion is that either prong of the plan or exactly he's not entitled to relief the court then went on to say under the second prong of planar review there must be so serious effect that the furnace of the defendant's trial and challenge the integrity of the judicial process we carve this of the closest we're cases including following a complete would not help counsel trial before biased judge racial discrimination the selection of a grand jury the miles up representation a trial the novel public trial and of the fact the reasonable doubt and structure in this court further pointed out by months ago the supreme court has held all confrontation clause violations are not structural   court wrote five months ago in watts why don't you fail to beat the second prong because it sounds to me like you have not established what amounts to a structure or earth this case based on what i just read the the argument and i don't know that i haven't reviewed was that i can recall i know but now in in your defense it was a rule twenty three  the the nature of an error being committed in a confrontation a confrontation was issue air being committed there are arguably no areas of the law  development of case law over the last ten days even five years in confrontation cases and this is a case where the core presided over a trial and allowed the state to  line about there he wasn't winded there's no evidence he was lying about that but i would like to know one subtle difference between what your honor just said my understanding of the record at least he was referring to what the tests showed he was referring to  defense in this case the defense was the fantasy referred to you know that the defendant said about guys putting cocaine in my baggage wasn't well for me i guess i have two responses to that and that was the i don't want to classify  theory that the defense was was pursuing if he decides not to serve that tremaine confrontation rights he only the stone upon him doesn't matter he's got a good reason for doing that as this court second prong evaluation i have not i have not we'd be the first i believe you would be if it doesn't sound you know i've read this list from our decision in watts which is also these other cases because frankly  letting a guy from the way testify erroneous lead to hearsay about what someone else in the web did strikes me as rather short of the standard of a biased judge racial discrimination accurate and i have not cited a case that said that the error that occurred in this case raises to a level of structural there what i am merely trying to say is and maybe it's it's an argument that  time every day procedure in leech or was an autopsy report and in that case the court essentially said well it's not a toxic report it's nothing that was developed specifically to aid the of tension that it is and mainly i base that upon the fact that tremaine was arrested and sitting awaiting prosecution when this report was ultimately developed it was a report that was essential to the state's case in order to me of proving him guilty of trafficking over one hundred grams of cocaine absent that report there is no evidence regarding weight here which again is why i think that this case goes to the closely balance point as that element because if that element is gone the state the state's case is really under viable in many ways be it that this isn't the case and i cited to the needs case in the phrase which again needs the state provided the new pathologist with autopsy photographs post mortem examination report toxicology analysis diagrams investigative reports and other miscellaneous documents at that the new pathologist could formulate his own opinion about what happened in the case and there's no confrontation problem because the defense can only probe that witness's testimony to determine why reach the conclusions that he did the defense c that here all the defense had was an ex was a pathologist or a forensic scientist coming in and saying i really i was reporting this is what she said well for the firm's objection  well they didn't but in the head who objection betrayed and sustained my guess is they could have probably done it well and that's one of the things that really for all intensive purposes isn't involved in the plane talking about it but nonetheless in a situation like this in the absence of objection the disabling in the state should have known about it and the court should know that nobody did and that's why there's a plane  after the data sensing which was november first two thousand and thirteen the defendant is relying on from what he considers to be a properly filed pro se motion to reconsider satins filed on november sixth two thousand and thirteen which was five days without after sentencing however is the trial court found and the defendant has not overcome the presumption of prednisone the record based on the trial court's finding the defendant remained represented by counsel and the counsel showed up at the hearing on the pro se motion to reconsider sentence he's still there he's still being represented by counsel and the trial court strikes at most that post a motion to reconsider sentence on the very ground the defendant is still represented by counsel so in this case the record does show that bennett was still represented by the same attorney the fact that he had mentioned that the defendant was now engine out of fines and couldn't afford a council for appeal and thereby requested greg point of the post tendered does not mean that the trial for the trial council's responsibility for the case ended at sentencing but he's not got out of the case prior to child counsel still in the case of hearing on the motion to reconsider sentence which was which was on february third two thousand and fourteen and of course the trial court also had made the appointment order as at the state sensing in november two affect the trial court the discourse jurisdiction which would have been under the notice the feel that was sent to this court and docketed this is a general number for dash thirteen one thousand which of course however was stricken by the trial court entry reinstated the initial clear file those people from november two thousand and thirteen now there's a substantial question is whether the trial court has authority but many months later to reinstate an appeal that this court would have order striking an appeal that's a question this courtly not decide and should not decide in this case this is for dash fourteen zero one three seven the only question whether this court has jurisdiction under the court file those here because this is not that appeal the senate and then if he thinks that that should be reinstated by a motion for supervisor order from a sample from the dismissal of that appeal but this is an untimely appeal a conflict and it should be resolved in favor of record rather than stanford because the intent and language of the supreme court ruled six to sixteen which this court can construe reflects that a note at the time for appeal should be told only if the motion  conviction petition it could be sooner should be considered not filed even though it is in fact accepted by the clerk so therefore if it's not filed it's not subject to tolling there is no way that there could be  but the reason is in order to have tolling and also recognize under rucker if these could be somehow reconciled sanford and record the reconciled then this court would have to then throw out the third case an authorized motion to reconsider and thereby retain jurisdiction and told time for appeal there's just no possible way that all these will be reconciled the only way to resolve it is to follow six of six these literal language and not call sanford and for those claim here is that craps opinion was simply a surrogate and that is not borne out by the record as a clear obvious error on this record because it is not clear obvious on the record whether you're saying the state just he he emphasizes that simply that all that he has to go on this craft analyst is that peers report and that's what he says he doesn't cite the record for that  mentions exactly what you're dead and in doing so refer to peers notes and records as well as it's own experience and expertise so this is much closer to the state you create case from wisconsin below or how much experience and expertise make an independent opinion based on reviewing other analysis work notes and records and it doesn't mess the record it's not clear as to whether notes or records includes all of the underlying data for example the gas records is more than simply just the report it could mean as much as the underlying data if that's so who did in the file folder for example that craft review and expert is entitle to review the work of another expert and make their own in those cases are distinguishable because those cases all had testimony of statements there's no testimony or statement here and it's simply an independent opinion and it's not clear obvious that it is otherwise why do you say there's no testimonial sleep working in the well testing drugs and they for use in a criminal case this these are people who individually do their own testing him to do their own work except that gr chromatograph they didn't produce it they didn't see it produced but they can look at the credit graph and they can make their own independent opinion as to what that america shows its not so far that the area here is they're saying is th it could still be consider it's just whether he was denied his right to cross examine and thereby poke holes into the credibility or reasons to accept that testimony is true and by not having a competing expert opinion for example then if there were competing expert opinions on the subject of whether this was cocaine or how much it weighed and then if one of them for example  i'm just simply means is there a risk of an innocent person being convicted here and the fact that whether she knowingly transported what was in that bag doesn't speak to what that nature of that substance wise and that's why there has to be some sort of issue the state relies on somewhat of a faulty premise that the defendant was represented at the time that he filed his motion in its argument the state said well counsel was present at the time that they had the hearing on the defendant come here mr no never once said i've representing the defendant the court never asked him are you representing the fund there is no evidence in the record that he was representing the fund it the state seems to want to rely on crest testimony that he reviewed beares notes and reports as maybe he won't maybe there's a test documentation regarding the test she performed you like test strips or something like that in the record specifically what he testified to was and that this is a question made by the state given by the state and given her absence have you then had the occasion to review her notes and her reports as they relate to the exhibits submitted to the drug enforcement administration for forensic testing analysis yes there's absolutely no evidence in this record whatsoever that there were any test results come out of graph results spectrometer results nothing that looked at this is simply a case where he was acting as parroting what was in beers report and under the confrontation clause requirements in the cases they have interpreted that that is not sufficient in this case finally the state talks about the defense in meeting some sort of contrary evidence or contrary witness to counter crest testimony part of the the whole rationale behind crawford is you need to have some confirmation somebody they're looking confirm that there's a reason to believe that it doesn't answer my question ok maybe i misunderstood the question is there any reason to disbelieve he detail tests that i never heard and i'd like to think i'm a fairly educated person these tests some public aid and you know tests that you would see a chemical analyst perform on a substance test that have a lot of steps to them he went on for i think it was about three pages on a series of steps that the analysts would take in order to examine drugs i would posit to this court but if there was a misstep in any one of those steps he could mean that the results that we're bam and the results that the defense could cross examine proft about because he wasn't all were inaccurate so there's no evidence that the testimony was a lie or was fabricated but there certainly isn't evidence to demonstrate that the testing should be accepted except without question unfortunately because of the confrontation clause violation the questions were