evidence is closely balanced under the plane air at will toward personal the state's evidence of the specific intent to kill in this case was so closely balanced in fact the only evidence that the state had to prove intent to kill that the shooter was shooting in his direction because he was able to see the muzzle flash but that was inconsistent with the physical evidence in the case officer logan's testimony was inconsistent with the physical evidence because there were no bullish lights found anywhere near where logan as we know the testimony of a jailhouse informant is inherently suspect and in this case rational anderson was a five time from victim alley he had multiple prior convictions for crimes of dishonesty burbery residential burglary daniel harris told him it was an easy shot if i wanted to kill him i could have killed him and that's then saying that there was no intent to kill because if i had it intended to kill he would have been shot it was shack and so because both these pieces of evidence that the state used to support intend to kill were weak in each and consistent with physical evidence and then rebut it by the defense's evidence here is the testimony and he was testimony under those and at the time of his testimony that statue had already been declared unconstitutional but yet on direct examination when defense counsel activities priors and he said he had a murder conviction counsel did not correct it at all and under the rules has a specific duty to correct known false testimony as witness and in this case it's better to do so and have only been the result of incompetence because it means that either defense counsel didn't know his witnesses background and was unaware that heywood didn't have this murder conviction or that he was aware that he would testify possibly and didn't correct it but either way it calls he allowed his human witness to be in impeached in the worst way with the murder conviction unnecessarily your honor and this is really the prosecutor said put look at the other friend using heywood in custody on murder i have an alice in custody off i don't suck charges do you think it's a hobby that the defendant would fire at logan so the prosecutor takes this false testimony that you can't see a muzzle flash unless the barrel is pointing at you there have been absolute the no expert testimony establishing they cannot be a muzzle flash unless a barrel is pointed at you in fact when the firearms expert when the p lopez testimony didn't give the prosecutor a reasonable basis for this argument because all the office to logan testified is that you can't see a muzzle blast and let the gun is between the two people he said nothing about the barrel pointing at the person flash unless the gun was the between the two people as opposed to you know not between them but in this case even after one has testimony doesn't make any sense because they backed it as i explained in my opening brief those that did not have to in a way to make it seem as even more stronger evidence of specific and take heal and counsel did not object and this is why i feel prejudicial because all these blunders going to bradley to the issue of  planning and people versus raise when a seventeen year old tony harris will spend the rest of his life in prison for an offense and which no one was injured or even came close to being injured is clearly x sense that the seriousness of the offense does not fit the punishment mr here is the sentence had been enhanced wife already by virtue of this also logan status as a police officer and explained to miller and the constitutionally mandated object of the story an offender to useful citizenship and one of the cases that i had in my brief people versus black out that that it is not enough for the court just as they that they have considered the defendant this court reversed and romance cost for a new trial or alternatively vacate the send for every man for a new sentencing hearing before a different judge i have a question sorry i have a procedural question based on the  cover page you might be correct about that but in this transcript he was not the judge that heard it so it was a look at the sentencing order and it does appear judge for his signature and then some of judge hurries marks in the transcript are very characteristic of what we've considered said that that harry patch and i'm quoting a victim to protect people but i know from case law that i factor that with inherent and let's have murder of a police officer if the fact that the victim sentence and he was first told you both release at the age of one hundred five years of age of course that was the defect those settings and the supreme court make it in that because in this case you have a police officer testifying that he believes that the defendant shooting at him the state obviously believes he did it because the defendant is charged in the event so we have a jury that doesn't even understand the presumption of innocen doesn't understand the fact that the state has to prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt we don't know if the jury was able to follow those standards in this case your honor and counsel talked about the quantity versus the quality of the evidence in this woods false testimony that he had a murder conviction was not prejudicial but that's almost disingenuous given the fact that the prosecutor at trial benefited from it that the prosecutor at trial took like that suit but yet the prosecutor took advantage of that os testimony and used it to him are heiresses guilt from that box testimony your honor so this court has no further questions i ask that this court reversed the think we have enough on this record to show that he is hostile towards mr harris and towards this type of offense that he believes that mr harris should have gotten one hundred years for this that he  should have been maxed out for this and i believe that there is enough in this record to show that judge perry cannot follow the constitutionally mandated objective of restoring mr harris to use of citizenship and he had not follow