during the trial court asked the prosecutor and defense counsel would you agree that the ethical factors for an estimate of the actual time of confinement would be based upon eighty five percent and that everyone agreed to that how does that impact you the state thousand are you that this was an implied finding and that the defendants imply a plea agreement however this was a very complicated fact pattern and without a discussion on the record regarding the effective date of truth in sentencing and the duties of the offense i don't think that we can assume from this two sentence discussion on the transcript that this is what they were talking about the sentencing hearing to occurred in two thousand and three over five years after truth and sentencing went into effect the more likely scenario is that the trial court was saying this predatory criminal sexual come under the guise of truth in sentencing and defense agreed yes it does the more likely scenario is that they were talking about whether eighty five percent applied in offense was that it occurred before she turned thirteen which was june twelfth one thousand nine hundred nine that it was sunny out but it was during the school year and that the defense occurred a year or two a year and a half before they moved from our past so a year before they moved from el paso  a sentence is who weighed based on the record that was presented at trial the evidence presented at trial ac and you see his memory was very very fuzzy i mean that's why the indictment alleged this two year period  you know her most detailed memories of that it was sunny out that it was a school day she was home sick from school that day but her most detailed memories from a specific testimony was that the offense occurred a year to year and a half before they left i'll pass out that entire six month testimony trying to establish when that occurred you you you basically come up with ranges kind of based on when they were living in el paso and when they moved there is very good could be before or sentencing and and i would it has it that we should go with her most specific testimony even though most of her testimony is very vague and the possibility that it occurred after june nineteenth one thousand nine hundred eight raises sentencing the order that he surveyed five per cent of a sentence was illegal allegation carries the burden and his senses but wade so it can be it can be attacked at any time allegation in his petition in combination with the evidence presented at trial that is the evidence that supports the allegation to show that his sentence is illegal eighty five percent cannot stand because there is no evidence that they supports more likely that it occurred prior to june nineteenth one thousand and eight the evidence is vague is his memory was very very vague however if you look at the most specific aspect of her testimony  involving that no raise this challenge in a to dash fourteen one to show that raised a completely different issue for example and raise this argument for the first time on appeal then their relief could only be had if the sentence was sent or the part of the sentence said he's challenging is in proceeding such as this one but as the welsh case and demonstrates in that case there were consecutive sentences but because of the single course of conduct requirements the defendant welch alleged that his sentence truth in sentencing and therefore the truth in sentencing portion of the sentence is not only if the defendant believed that the record evidence would have shown that he either could have possibly or more likely or even if he within the statute limitations or take this issue on the direction of he's subject to only making his claim which he does here which is that the sentence is void but it's not he sent to davis case there's a difference between have to show that it's i'm not sure there's a case that shows that if there's an overlap for discrete effects in the case that i found was where the defendant committed multiple acts a series of conduct or something that for the effective unless he actually somehow pleads and proves that then there really is no way to know whether the trial court was wrong to decide this question because the defense has an alleged by telling criminal court for many years you have the attorneys come up where you have a syncing hearing and you're basically focusing on ok is this a day for dance or eighty five percent and or seventy five percent and i think counsel suggesting that it was really more about that versus this occur during the time period where truth in sentencing was in effect so what about this language and that the truck or stand on the record leads you to think that this isn't enough or and imply finding the answer and i stand a question offense but yet if this court resumes without evidence the contrary that the judge followed them by the law the important point here is that this sensing statute specific lee says that it applies to the his day for day conduct would entitle him if this court were to agree with him give him an immediate release on mandatory supervised release for example those are what he is is you see he's asking the wrong court really for the wrong relief at this point going back to your questions about the burden the burden at sentencing is on the state to show that mr edge was eligible for truth in sentencing and based on this record that he did not meet that target in the petition in the two fourteen zero one protection as it untimely and this court must find that it was void to to side with mr edges argument he didn't have to even allege this in his two fourteen zero one percent the sentence is unlawful it's void it can be attacked at any time but the burden remains with the state on showing that he was eligible for eighty five percent time and they did not at trial the evidence presented there is no other evidence that they would have been able to present that ac was questioned by the state's attorney and by defense counsel about as much detail as she could remember and what she testified to was the best to her recollection and that evidence shows that it's more likely that the offense occurred prior to the effect trial judge made an implied finding in this case as we've talked about this the details of this the timing here for twenty five minutes there is no way that the trial court with no discussion made a specific finding that the offense occurred after june one thousand nine hundred ninety eight and that defense counsel agreed to that there's no reason defense counsel would have agreed that his client should be subjected to eighty five percent sentencing when there's a very good chance that the offens a better chance of the offense occurred prior to the effective date of something that's not what they were talking about this is five years after two thousand sentencing had been the law they were making sure that predatory criminal sexual assault was an offense that came under the truth and sentencing act and that's what that discussion was about and there was not an implied finding and that's why the sentence is void and map voidable because mr edge was not subject to truth in sentencing and the court did not have the authority