good afternoon i'd like to start out if i may today with an example i would propose you to codify it was both of whom have committed example better than anything else shows why the state's theory of this idea well you just send it back for the sentencing and that's the end of if you don't think about it anymore it is unfair and work what did you hear in court go to the spring for all the supreme court original range of sentencing so i think with bat in mind i think we can agree that it can't be taken orally verbatim so then i think the next question is well then what happens on what happens on reading and i think that the sort of a matter of why here's the key without discretion as the legislative history in the case is all so particular the legislative history the trial judge has to pick a sentence between six and thirty years using his or her discretion just as all  prior the same as it was before the fifteen twenty twenty five to life came into existence and then the legislature said the next term of years whatever's approaching that case fifteen twenty twenty five to life are added on automatically without discretion so i mean i think it's just logical that then if you add on is the constitutional portion of the sentence then i'm dreaming and that constitutional time should come off i mean i don't think this is i don't think it's a stretch to say that that's at least that's a  right so the range of the judges range was from six to thirty and then there was not a magic add on which most courts the way they talk about it is that they say well that made the range twenty one to forty five  so the judge is just if the test parse that out in terms of i think this crime is worth fifteen years and that's what i've sent you to you're going to end up with thirty because now the legislature said you have another fifteen to serve on top with the judge say i want think that i've actually read cases in which they've done of both ways i've seen cases where they say i think this crime is worth twenty years the legislature has said you're getting another fifteen there for the total term is thirty five years i've seen other judges say something somewhere to what happened in this case which is about twenty five years sentence but that doesn't make the state's position correct my position is that it just means that the trial judge was doing wrong the whole point of the sounds were to really ramp up the penalties for crimes committed with firearms hence the fact that it's no discretion there added on automatically as a matter of what the legislature wanted the judge to have full range of discretion they just would have changed how they range from six thirty to six to forty five and then the judge so you said sort of fifteen or whatever the judge felt that worked with the legislature said not we really want these to be rammed and this is video only time you probably hear me advocating for really long sentences but that's what they that's what they wanted that's what they said that's that's and that's in the legislation i don't think i can see oh we're not sure because the judge didn't expressly say you know didn't break it up as you were just mentioning and you know say this is what i think the underlying sense of this is add up is the way what we're left with is easily figure out what was it was fifteen years so then we can say well if you're doing it wrong it was doing it wrong but the underlying sentence is ten years so i think the best thing to do in these situations is not to say oh you just sent it back down  or down if there is new evidence in aggravation or mitigation perspective and always like a sales tax if you're if you're negotiating to buy a new car you agree on a thirty thousand dollars price the sales tax comes up after the fact that's it's just there that's what it is it's it doesn't really have anything to do with it except that's the legislature so you have the you have to pay this this in addition to it so i think a gain i'll go back to that to that example that i started with if if this court would accept the state's position which is you just send it back for the sentencing no questions asked then it inherently would lead to unfair results because for example  only gets five that's not an equitable remedy for either side that's not quite the legislature intended here with these it's fifteen on fifteen off thank you imposed this sentence within the statutory limits of sixty one to forty five you're now the limit ten years i don't think reflects the either the legislative intent or the way this session a ppropriate for this particular defendant say that on remeron he has he's now limited because of what he chose the first time i think is limited to fifteen regardless even if you use his approach the statute was confusing but it was a fifteen year answer and if you are following the technical terms of the statu existed before the hesters if you didn't want to talk about a situation where the the fact that it was back with twenty is pretty telling that he wasn't thinking that way because that always changes the defendant good behavior in prison for these for that for a few years everything else is the same the fact was the original really man for a reset and saying before because of the pro down to the lowest number six recognizing that you've got that fifteen years that's already at rock even though you don't think that's necessarily call for this particular case i think the first trousers when they look times out of ten actually is and what i'm saying is that corner legislative history what they're supposed to do is decide on what they think the crime is worth between six and thirty and then they aren't just a pos like the sales tax i mean the dealer isn't considering what the buyer has to pay on the sales tax the buyer why do you consider it but that the deal is not about it so it's not i think you're exactly right what i'm saying is that technically when they're doing it that way they're doing it incorrectly and i the you can't assume that the court is following the law i think that gaap sophistry you're supposed to assume the courts follow which in this case i think would be you know i think it's is two step process i think you're exactly right the way you know that they do it the way you just described but that doesn't change the fact that we have a fifteen year old out here and that was part of the twenty five year sentence the other thing is my my proposal or my theory the state argued that it would lead to unfair results