judge considered improper aggravating factors and sentenced today i should like to take the arguments in reverse order and begin with the sentencing issue here to try to judge considered to improper the second improper consideration was that the judge based his sentence on his own personal sentencing policy which was that a defendant who had previously served to prison term w minimum sentence confined as a result the general statements were not simply about right mr scott did not get the minimum sentence but revealed a policy in which a certain class of defendants range of sentencing based on the minatory classic sentencing provisions and in fact anyone who would still qualify for classic sentencing because of two prior class two convictions most likely would have already served  prison sentence so based on his trial judge's sentencing policy it would be extremely difficult for any defendant in this class of offenders to receive a minimum is twice the maximum sentence and based on the fact that the perps by its own words is saying this is why you're not for this is why i'm not considering the minimum sentence these factors cannot be deemed first one when detective throughout said that mr scott had previously sold drugs to the same informant previously sold drugs in the same neighborhood and the problem with this accusation is that there was no  in that case the defense counsel examines the interrogating officer about whether or not a video was good whether or not the video was shown in the proper know perhaps he can get the confession isn't as damning as as many confessions are and we have been the second instance of the crimes evidence which is when mr scott admitted to smoking marijuana now the state argues in this brief that his statement was not  damaging because it's the same offense the same buyer and the same neighborhood the same police officer who says you know what all is going on just when it's combined with just the saddest thing about smoking he interpreted the timestamp on the video from being minutes and seconds to actually being hours and minutes which line up almost almost exactly the way defending claims they would have been  however this objection to it being edited is basically the opposite argument the defendant is arguing here on appeal just because defendants initial objection concerned a video that shouldn't preserve any argument concerning the video on appeal that would be overly pay and would fact from a policy perspective benefit or be benefit to the three specific instances counsel mention but more importantly the full video was highly probative to watch for the jury to watch in its entirety again the defendant's main theory was that this video was edited but he was actually interrogated for over seventeen hours it was necessary for them to view the complete media to see if any fishing this is in the ad is rare in the video were they from the states perspective to show that this was a complete the f make three minor cuts in this video would be would lead to presumably jury confusion because then they would arguably be in a video you see you know you've done this standard interrogation to me from the video and again looking at it in context this was never in this other seven this was never mentioned before this this appeal so the redactions to respond today the truck at the finish main thing was that the video was edited and then he was actually interrogated for seventeen hours even if it's not forfeited or way it's harmless error anyway why is that because the evidence against offender was overwhelming it's just so mentioned he confessed three times in the video he only it was a minimizing confession that he was a middle man or something like that but it was a confessional all the same and perhaps most damning the money the recorded money measuring serial numbers was found on the famous person he was arrested so there was clearly overwhelming evidence even if these were these three minimal redactions had occurred bar why is that because the trial court was never allowed to these were these were march by the trial court and the improper aggravating factor or the personal policy as defend sentence based on his lengthy criminal record it didn't reflect rigid official policy and sentencing defendants and they could it was impossible to because one of the qualifying factors was the minimum is basically reserved for those defendants that don't have as much of a previous criminal history as you do this is obviously not a solid fire for minimum sentences and in fact presumably this was the first time this trial sentence to be encouraged is of no consequence that's what happened here this was a personal remark an aside this was not a rigid policy in this it's especially clear when you look at it in context and read the whole sentence by the trial court brief in that case trial only mention the compensation factor in saying i'm sensing defended and a number of other aggravating factors were found present relied upon therefore this court concluded ensures that the compensation factor didn't lead to a greater sentence  here word was not did not lead to a greater sense and remained is not necessary especially when you look at it from a plane or analysis but this issue was never raised and was therefore for for the being raised on appeal and in fact in the proces post motion he again objects that this video should not have been admitted second regarding the jury instructions which counsel mentioned in this case design and knowledge however none of those four pride and the state has not contended that you need those four limited purposes applies here so it's hard to see how to tip the balance against the tentative balance in favor of a higher sentence and in fact when you look at the corresponding words in the fact that he says this is raw a minimum sentence isn't being imposed in this case clearly that