should consider and one of them being the pre sentence investigation which did not exist the first time around correct that is correct now one other question is you get to these were either one of the issues that you're raising here the state agreement was that it changed which is a start sugar in exchange for your giving up certain constitutional rights we will recommend a twenty three year sentence but the point i understand your point the say no because it was still going to hear some evidence of the stipulated evidence but it was still going to hear evidence and not only hear evidence but see other things that he did not see in the first proceedings the victim impact statement you know what i'm getting i'm i'm looking at the whole big picture here but there are other things that come in waive your right to confront witnesses we will agree if you're wrong if you're found guilty they will recommend a twenty three year sentence the state benefits because they don't have to assemble the evidence they don't have to put the victim through the statute as we go to play with the statutes mandatory and also to give the defendant the benefit of the spirit here the twenty three years be seen as a cap on the sentence this court that the bar that was this recommendation that is the sit between the defendant and the people the court commented that they would proceed to sentencing where the parties would recommend the twenty three years this was a stipulated bench trial and even though there was a comment from the trial judge saying then that what nine nine nine nine and what a continuing her son that you will likely be found guilty this still is a speculative statement when he said i will determine because it was a stipulated bench trial but the corps has a conference with the attorneys to write it the disposition ordinarily the right disposition is not just the determination  since what class felony weather's going to be reduction but also what the parties agreed to with regard to his sentence and then he gets twenty seven years it's supposed to the twenty three that he thought he was doing t the judge said this this is where the parties are told me that we are going to proceed to doing this and the parties will come forward and recommend these  i don't recall from the record i'm not getting a false sense of why i wanted to go there but me you go into then seeing what the judge is going to do about it that's typically why you ensure the forum to conference to see if you're going to get what you're asking for but you never as he walked in and door and maybe this is a question  even the simulations were the truth because the judge made clear you're not hearing they're telling the truth but face when they say that but they are saying that was so you're agreeing this is what the testimony would be you're not agreeing that the and generally the case last as you have to argue with specificity and you came back on appeal arguing with specificity that this was an error for pearson's meth that because it  just looking at the posture of some of the cases underneath and without knowing factually and a lot of these cases what if anything was raised in a motion to reconsider  and seeing how it was argued that the arguments are very narrowly tailored to this presumption of inductive ness that the court improperly raise the sentence and not necessarily couching it in an excessive sentence and i think that because of the distinction and how the cases were handled that is that's why the people present a bit better play now and in this case talking about where the presumption of vindictiveness lies and it's fair they talked about this reasonable likelihood of been addicted mess and i think here to proceed in the manner in which they proceeded and defendant was giving up his rights to proceed to that a free sentence that they were bound by that and they did maintain that that sentence when behind your back you screw up on the fact three miles and you have to go back and reconsider this you can't under five four you can't use that information to impose a harsh the people recognize that there is you have to do you have to be compliant with both under the under the legislature at this point but in this case you did have some you did have some conduct proceeding showing vindictiveness is that is where you consider the fact that the judge properly followed the five three one proceedings  below the cap of twenty three and we already that's been established so the court the remedy they were seeking is for the court to exercise its authority under six fifteen to reduce the sentence to the course we will now stand the journey for today thank you