evaluation was to conditionally discharge mr taft would be true that even under that sooner the court would still not necessarily hear follow the recommendation of the expert opinion for you yes that's accurate but i don't believe the court would be an expert in that matter and would i would hope that would take the extra fragmentation on to initially discharge  cannot have a prejudice so the basic argument here is that the court erred at a two thousand and seventeen hearing by considering a two thousand and sixteen report and educating a two thousand and fifteen  recovery attention specifically the argument is that the two thousand and sixteen report was so outdated that when the court consider the report in testimony based in part there on concluding that the defendant remained essentially dangerous a person the court violated the defendant's right to be evaluated based on his present mental condition however approach the present mental condition issues in our case all refer to the defendant's present mental disorder so he basically has the right to be evaluated based on his present mental disorder and at the recovery hearing itself the defendant stipulated that he was presently suffering from a qualifying mental disorder both of value waiters here agreed that he was diagnosed properly diagnosed with antisocial personality disorder as well as specific here feel it disorder and that he was aroused by non her females the only dispute really was whether he was properly diagnosed with petty felix disorder to to that end children although she admits she could be wrong and so her basic analysis here was because only one of his four victims was freeview vasant that being an eight year old girl who repeatedly assaulted over six months  whereas the other three victims were believe you just were thirteen fifteen and sixteen so i guess it was assumed that they were opposed to best sent but but but but based on this he that the second acts for a pine that perhaps he was not properly diagnosed with had a field disorder but in any event whether he suffered from that particular disorder or not the defendant nonetheless stipulated that he was suffering from a qualifying mental disorder and for that reason the court's decision that he remained essentially dangerous evidence and the cases that he that that are cited in the briefing the the court there relied on the defendant's mental condition at the time of his original commitment which is just simply not what happened here now it should also be noted that to the extent that that there's there's even an argument that this report was outdated that's largely a consequence of the defendant's own numerous intervening motions in the state's position is that it would be unreasonable to hold that a report filed again after and in response to a pub reallocation can ever be rendered inadmissible outdated by the lay caused by the defendant's own enervating file now with respect to the first evaluators opinion the the defendant takes exception to it because he argues that she did not confirm her complaint pollutions from two years earlier however that's just simply not true she testified at length about the various follow of steps that she took really just before the hearing and those included as your honour's noted her recent correspondence with the defend this primary therapist that that the department of corrections she also reviewed his i believe it was his most recent treatment plans semiannual program evaluation and his recent group knows so the evaluator whose opinion the defending champions in this case who actually did not take any follow up steps that your honor noted after submitting her report six months before the hearing so ironically it's actually the the evaluat whose opinion the defendant champions here who rendered an opinion without confirming those prior inclusions now finally even if even if a report that again filed after and in response to the recovery application could somehow become so outdated that it's an admissible evidence of course decision that the defendant remained especially dangerous person still was not against the manifest weight of the evidence the defendant's own or or again the evaluator whose opinion the defendant champions here she she she although she did testify she did recommend that he be released she never the less again and minute he was diagnosed with two qualifying mental disorders and type personality disorder specific airfield disorder and that he's aroused by not considering females she also admitted as your honor noted that he had rest in his progress and in his treatment plan since two thousand and fifteen when he filed the recovery application she also admitted that his biggest problem continues to be entitlement power and control issues with was of particular concern because the recidivism factor for president prior to his two thousand and two release and she admitted that there is no cure for the sexual related issues that he suffers from explaining that really the only question is whether he would be able to control himself and then finally and perhaps most importantly she admitted that that that all of the assessments indicated that he was actually at an above average rest to reoffend in part because again he had a continued interest and non consenting female so a decision of the trial court in this matter and matter like this is only against the manifest weight of the evidence where the opposite conclusion is clearly apparent given all this evidence from the evaluat or whose opinion the defendant champions here it can't reasonably be said that the trials for its decision here are that it was clearly apparent that this individual has no was no longer sexually dangerous person so especially dangerous person was not against this weight of the evidence and for those same reasons the defendant's an effective assistance argument other also fails because he simply can't establish prejudice there's not a reasonable likelihood that the result of the hearing would have been different