court in this case committed reversible error when it ruled i'm johnson's pro se motion to reconsider sentence in his hands united states supreme court has long instructed that the complete deprivation of once the motions ruled on that's when the clock or finally the notice of appeal starts for the more illinois courts have consistently held that a motion to reconsider sentence is defendant wasn't deprived of counsel was represented there never got to whether or not it was a critical stage or not and whether it was per se a reversible error there the court said well  johnson didn't make a tactical decision not to argue its case it wasn't given that choice and the the court and burnett only kept to the question of whether or not wit of discretion to rule without oral argument because it ruled that counsel or the defended had counsel now if as the supreme court and united states  a written motion to reconsider and the judge will now having input from anyone so it really is not a him home and that's what i'm using for seating right here and the courts and johnson was brought into court he could have argued no excuse me judge i would like to argue those and in his motion himself he said he asked to be brought in to argue when the motion was and usually put on all is it a critical stage if it's the critical stage band no matter what happens at the actual proceeding if the defendant is deprived of representation if per se  trial and only made cursory mention of the seriousness of johnson's background and other minute that he considered mitigating and i continue factors weber at t sentence or remand from the sentencing particularly given that johnson was given the maximum sentence and you know this this is a fairly small amount taking no one was injured good morning mary boleyn on behalf of the people with regard to the second argument there are two parts to this argument the first part that defendant is arguing is that he had a right to representation and the second part is that he had a right to be present and argue his  supreme court has said in baker and this court clarified that when you make a valid waiver that continues into sentencing and it continues into post trial there's no question about that there's nowhere for it to claim made in this case so he at the beginning of trial and as you are aware although the defendant in arguing about it in answer to your question this was an individual who was forty four years old had a thirty year criminal history record had himself to the minimum sentence just defendant adamantly demanded to represent himself and that is a constitutional right and every judge can do their best to dissuade or to suggest that alternately at the end of the day we can't give a constitutional right and then he has such skepticism that we bad because he was convicted or you know he was doing on this occasion somehow he should have been able to exercise it it is his right every judge including judge brown on several occasions i don't recall the court heard us or at the little younger because they created attempted to go through exactly not what the court is required to go through which is what it means to represent yourself but the court a number of junctions not only judge hill but also judge brown who if there well some procedures he didn't he didn't clarify this in some cases the judge judge brown actually said to him if this is what you're trying to do this is how you do it and then the the the defendant would completely ignore the judge there is no reason to believe that he would have if you choose this path this is the path you're going to choose here's what the responsibilities are here's richard duties will be here's what you need to be concerned about sometimes guessing the state to a system sometimes telling him what he needed to do sometimes saying here's an assault go ahead and  crime this is what you need to do nothing says the judge chasseur upright stand by counsel to do those types of things the defendant here was an experienced defendant he was not a child he was in his thirty's he has nine player convictions he chose this path it was a very cells argument one at my desk since that was an area but let me talk about argument one then for a minute to give some factors first of all the judge simply stated i'm exercising my discretion and secondly in gibson you look at the nature and the gravity of the ch evidence here the one of the few times he makes in this case is that i couldn't get the video and i don't know how to get the video and the state introduce the video the video came in and i would point out as a as i story to in history as an argument he made a point of saying to the jury you didn't see the rest of the video the jury sentai would not we'd like to see the video the parties in the crowd made sure that the video got shown to the jury two more times so the defendant was successful in getting in what he wanted to get in and then you have and a half a dozen different occasions to find it said i demand my right to do this he had a right to do this and he was able to cross examine every witness heat obtain some concessions he was able to get the video to be examined by the jury in its entirety training if any answers your question let me turn back to issue two for a minute with regard to issue two as i said you had a right to representation the second point to that is the point that was directly addressed by burnett that said there is no general right to appear right i've presence is a right that facilitates an underlying substantial right so for instance in the bean case it was the right to a public trial and here he had a right to file a motion to reconsider he filed that motion to reconsider and as the defendant as argued here on appeal the only issue he's raising in fact the only issue that's i need to smoothing is that he was not happy with the judge's comments with regard to his representing himself and what that meant however with regard to the motion itself the only thing he raised was that issue which would ask the court to basically reweigh the factors an aggravation of the court at sentencing however sad the court is concerned the statutory mitigation and aggravating factors i think the evidence in this case i'm aware of the jury's verdict i'm considering the defendant's rehabilitative potential i consider the facts and circumstances in this case i would consider the pre sentence investigation including its outline of the defendant's criminal history a statement of conviction that have been brought up i consider the statement of the defendant and i'm prepared to deliver what i believe is the appropriate sentence in this case the defendant has no right to a presence as a general constitutional matter and his ri manner as a way of punishing his his behavior and keeping in mind that the officers here was still in a hundred and thirty one dollars out of someone's pocket and the defendant received a sentence your honor the judge i think had tremendous amount of interaction with this defendant because he represented himself and because the judge tried so hard to write these proceedings to assist the defendant to ensure that his rights were max and didn't do the best job in representing yourself i don't find that prejudiced you because it was a pleasure to see you i would agree and i think i would have granted your motion for a new trial first you to work with counsel and have you have a new trial but i don't find there was a reasonable probability that the outcome would have been affected if you had been represented by a lawyer judge brown was trying to communicate to the defendant that although he made choices and those choices are the right path for him there was no reason to believe that the court was out to get him that anybody else was out to get him the to that outcome would have been the same and if the judge had the outcome would have been different he would have granted him a motion for a new trial he would have forced him to work for the writer because the judge was concerned for defendants welfare so i don't think the stress i think the stre clearly based his sentencing on the factors in the record including the nine time conviction on this defendant including this defendant who had absolutely no concern for the personality of his time that i just felt everybody was out to get him throughout this entire proceedings and as proceedings and let him represent himself he wasn't given that choice right i think i've argued extensively my reasoning for why i believe burnett is distinction for this from this case helping the defendant in this case then we'll see this thing i mean i know the judge used the word salad but as an attorney you want to walk into something where there's transcripts and history of the case i mean i mean that johnson had the right in the same given this case he just johnson's manifest inability to handle this case by himself i believe w