disregard any argument not me and not me based on the other things the juries presume to follow their instructions and while yes the judge did initially commit this argument also mentally the last thing they heard was this regard there's not evidence and you can't draw that inference and so in general the act of a trial judge the singing of jackson and properly admonishing the jury is sufficient to cure any prejudice from the improper remarks and the people submit that that's the case here where there is no egregious conduct of the past accuser in argument made clear that he was only arguing an inference he never said this is read the second records person testif to he just said here's what she testified to here's what i think you could find from it he makes flutes and friends even the trial judge found that inference was permissible initially as soon as the trial judge chaney changed his mind the prosecutor completely abandoned that argument there are multiple errors alleged there's no emotionally inflammatory argument and ultimately the objection was a sting and the jurors were instructed multiple times that  i could have been the one that did that crime because i was here with rodriguez and give st he said when asked what he did that day he said he was home alone until three o'clock at a different residence where you live with angela wilson so it doesn't make sense that if he had this great alibi he wouldn't tell police about what that alibi was and i think the question where were you on the day of the robbery could fairly encompass the time of the robbery not just what did you do after the robbery reading the improper factor argument that's also without merit because the trial judge can consider the serious seriousness of the offense and the nature and circumstances of the offen middle age lady but actually the victim testified in this case obviously at that point the trial judge would have had the opportunity to observe her so he will until she was weak just because she wouldn't see middle age which he also would have observed her and more importantly is her testimony of how the crime was actually committed so it's true that there was a gun used a victim stated that the defendant pulled the gun out and i guess she must be very very bra down and as far as whether maybe she would've been strong enough to get out of this she said he placed her knees down so she could not go anywhere so she was physically overpowered the gun wasn't enough to do it there's a degree of course here so this robbery  that wasn't just the threatening the use of the gun it was actually the physical overpowering and if there are no further questions the people met with the parents finds issues we agree that it needs to be remanded for a proper imposition the assessments of haas within thirty days of the entry of the sentencing order so the defendant has a meaningful way to challenge them in a post i would suggest just i can't say that but where the error that occurred didn't involve the actual sentence in terms of with the ten year i mean the sentence is void at least part of the sentence i want to make some of the points about th in the morning if the robbery when he did before he said he was at home you can now because that now i think he's a hypothetical to explain potentially why my point didn't come out and say well you didn't morning suppose my mother would call me when i get home day and i'm not going to focus on that and i asked my mom