and in any case anyone can monday morning quarterback talk about whether or not the judge made the right decision but as participants in a legal system on appeal we can only to be able to deal with the events as they actually are for them accordingly the discussion about what fifteen year should have applied at trial is really academic at this point the fact is the enhanced it was not applied the state did not appeal the fact that it wasn't tied in the issues therefore wait obviously things could have been different it could be argued that the judge could have modified  instruction part of the issues instruction did not contain the word firearm now it used dangerous weapons but the actual verdict of the jury convicted your client the point is the judge had an effect that point the judge arguably had some discretion as to what how she was going to handle the issue and i'm not arguing that any of those are the proper course of action what i'm saying that is fair here and there are various points when the judge was confronted with a fork in the ro when you keep saying she was found guilty of armed robbery  without having that issue percentage of the jury found that because a person must have a weapon to commit armed robbery the presence of a weapon cannot be used to aggravate that chance for their growth both the first and third districts have found that if you can use this armed with a dangerous weapon the type of weapon is not a material element of armed robbery yet the prosecution in the trial for this case continue to focus on the fact that a gun was used when given the opportunity to suggest a sentence the state recommended that miss frances received a sense of twenty one years is hardly a one sentence but this is the minimum that she would have been sentenced found her guilty of armed robbery with a firearm in other words the state to me that she was the state invader she was convicted of armed robbery i mean that's that's that's the freeman of parts it was armed robbery that's what that's what the priests read that's what the judge agre and it was within the judge's discretion to deal with that air and the way the judge decided to deal with it was to treat this as if it was an armed robbery yes my client had a gun but she treated as if it was an armed robbery had she treated it as if it was an armed robbery with a firearm and that if she didn't go probably before the in front of that quite nasty for twenty one years based on the fact that that's what she would have gotten but for the fact that she was not charged that she didn't get back she didn't get twenty she got one up right and the judge took it made it made a point of saying that she was taking that into consideration and the fact that but for robbery state demanding money and cell phones the first proposition defining armed robbery states intentionally took property gets us armed robbery would require proof of taking the snow doesn't relate at all to the question of whether a dangerous weapon is a firearm i can see that your honor but when the judge goes back and says the law is as it says on the jury instructions and not on the on the on the jury on the verdict form it stands to reason that any other questions that arise they're going to look to the jury instructions and how do we know that the that this particular issue it was a plain good statement that the jury instruction in answer to this question but she didn't guess it was the answer that question but her answer was a point that statement that a lot is as to the jury instructions not as good as the jury again the judge had discretion she put aside in this matter looked at the jury instructions if you have another question asked me again maybe it's can be different for difference of question but when she gives a blanket statement that the law is on the jury instructions then the jury has the right happens to be a firearm because they have to send a different set of sentencing guidelines employment rights they were arguing within the judge's discretion but the trial court decided to find that miss decided that misplaced was found guilty of armed robbery and she should have been sentence for self for such armed robbery with a firearm was no longer on the table it was the gun and only the gun that was offered in the sense of twelve years yes it's less than twenty one years it's still more than she should have gotten the judge didn't consider any continuum of harm and justified the heavy reliance on the gun as an aggravating factor the court did not save use was particularly brave or that the defendants conduct was particularly heinous it was simply no discussion of the defendants either at all this was not a brutal crime nobody was injured the only evidence of the gun was even lord it came from the defended herself there was no evidence that anyone was threatened with serious harm in fact one of the three people who was in the apartment was asked are you swear you scared and they answered a little bit that doesn't tell us it's serious harm to me this race was not present during the commission of the crimes and there is no evidence that any served by forcing a first time offender to spend twelve years twelve years that she claims and want to be a productive member of society and a supportive mother spending those twelve years in prison justice will only be served at this point i five by its mandate to not add on firearm use in the armed robbery therefore that would make it not required as a matter of considering the sense of viewpoint so if there was to effect an agreement that would be unconstitutional was changed into with a firearm and the other subsection is with a dangerous weapon other than a firearm so there is no longer simply armed robbery with a dangerous weapon so the fact is firearms here would not qualify as our primary dangerous weapon other than a insist on a fine twenty one year minimum there should at least be an opportunity for the state's attorney office to exercise their discretion if they want nice not speaking for the state's attorney's offices to what their actual decision would be but they should at least given the opportunity to maybe consider entering a post trial not know the price of the armed robbery counts if that would be something that would be within their power discretion even if it were at this stage of the case is the jury in the verdict forms are not part of the issues instructions so so that doesn't necessarily solve what was deemed to be an unconstitutional constitutional violation that the remedy that was agreed upon i don't have it in front of me but they did say that there is one offense of first degree murder in illinois and they soon we should try to remember to actually distinction from cases like our bribery where is there in fact are multiple versions crime here it seems that the defendants that there was language in there referring to void ab initio and the argument could be made not that i agree with it state would agree with this but the argument could be made that because the legislature never and of course the fact is armed robbery firearm is a very serious crime anywhere regardless of whether her livingston county or chicago so therefore this was not a case in which the crimes became improperly aggravated just because bad that these crimes might not be treated as severely in chicago and even if that were not true or even if it doesn't matter the fact is the judge had never actually enhanced the crime this sentence by saying this is a if i could have a moment even to read through what she's had and