you i would like to focus my time today on the first two issues an issue however if there are any questions concerning the remaining issues i'll be more than happy to answer it this is a case about a man with mental illness and suicidal i ignored by the judicial system those who were supposed to protect mr bill failed to do so and as a result of their rush to trial the sick man with a history of mental illness drug abuse and suicide attempt was bonafide doubt about mr bell's fitness and a herring or at the very least an evaluation should have been ordered some relevant factors to determine whether there's a bonafide doubt about fitness are the rationality of the defendant's behavior and  counsel statements concerning the defendant's competence and any medical any prior medical opinions on issues of the defendant's fitness mr bell's behavior prior to trial was alarming and should have si shirts that he was given in jail around his neck in flushing the other and down the toilet he also patterson having been a trial court and been in situations where you have people who are educated maybe don't want to go to there we don't have the benefit of interaction with this inner individual and seeing what happened in their demeanor and what was going on in the in the context and so how do we get over that hurdle because in my view that's  hurdle for you yes and so my argument is that even even left a child can't even if the child court at the time having seen mr bell or responding this way even if at that moment the trial court did not form a bonafide doubt about his fitness after having reviewed his p s i a prior to sentencing and which a detail that mr bell had been found unfit and a prior proceeding after having attempted suicide i think with ben the court could have and should have formed a bonafide doubt about his fitness and ordered an evaluation or or a hearing before sentencing him because the court was very much so in a position where it could have done that it's allowed to do that by statute and it's allowed to do that by case law i'm so even if the trial court at that moment thought that maybe mr bell was putting on or trying to delay the trial have we argue that right as soon as the trial court reviewed that p s i a and saw that the trial court could have been stopped and ordered some type of evaluation  addition to the court's duty to order a fitness evaluation or hearing trial counsel also should have done so ok but let me ask this question ok you do focus on ineffective assistance  if you were to prevail on the current go issue why should we issue what would effectively be were could be a precedent on any other issue because those issues may well be mooted by the trial court if the same judge or a different judge conducting a current goal hearing reviewing the transcripts are available understandingly the  then why are we speaking on issues that might be resolved at the trial level before you say this to you for the moment you you would prevail in crackle a lawyer who had the benefit of your a yes and the do over would be necessary because in this case mr bell also lost his right to be present at his trial so it so even if even winning on  will issue we would still be able to get him the new trial if he were to lose on the crank will issue there's still this issue of his trial being convicted in absentia and that actually leads me to my next point about how mr bell did not voluntarily knowingly intelligently and with sufficient awareness of the circumstances waive his constitutional right to be present at the trial the record is not clear at all that he understood that barrier having this kind of mental moment this moment of this kind of breaking down that he was not going to be allowed to be present for his trial and that he would of being convicted while he's not there it's not clear from the record that he was aware of this so what else would you have had the trial court do you know the trial forward to the  court could have even delayed the trial a day or two to allow mr bell an opportunity to calm down because it's very very important that when a person is waving their right to be present at trial that they are aware that this is what they are going away and it is not clear that mr bell was aware of that and so the less severe option other than conducting his trial in absentia would have been delaying it or continuing it because there was certainly no rush to get the trial over with it had started there were no victims who were waiting to testify who really know me and we know to come back and then there was the paid informant who he was being paid so he would come back because he's getting paid to testify so there was no there was no rush to get this  there was no jury there had been assembled or anything it very much though could have been delayed or continued and because the record does not demonstrate that mr bell knowingly and and excessive his p s i i was filled with details about his history of mental illness and drug addiction and that he suffers from major depression and he has a history of addiction to prescription drugs cocaine and other is the majority of it is drug related offenses it's clear that his drug abuse and mental illness likely go hand in hand with his drug offenses and this is  a factor that the court should have taken into consideration now i know that the court stated that you know it had read the p s a and that it had considered his mental illness but it  does not seem knowing this connection it does not seem that the or meaningfully considered this and instead it sentenced mr bell to assist in the sounding twenty two years for a drug related offense an offense that was not violent indeed a twenty two year sentence could have been given for a violent crime like murder or or even a sexual assault but here are nonviolent drug that i think is what justice you're trying to convey do you agree with their word or you can disagree well i think that these that these issues are still issues that this court can consider as i  believe that the trial court if it now if it reads what you are have said about this is about these other issues that it could perhaps sway the child away to consider for instance his m mental illness and his drug addiction and and in doing so perhaps consider lowering his sentence of twenty two year that if he gets a do over and we don't know what his terms of choosing or not choosing to address other issues for getting fines and fees we have several decisions which have said we're go not authorized to impose in terms of the clerk and then any other issues that are raised are going to be taken care of at the trial court level after the crank will hearing results in a win or lose for the defen ability to appeal anything other than the crinkle decision of the denial of the new trial at that point i'm not sure if that's the case or not ok so there is a possibility if there is any authority out there and i'm not aware of that might limit the scope of appeal on the basis of the inability if that is found in the subsequent appeal then they might be somehow prejudiced by that the through specter the rocker case this defendant's motion was not sufficient under a rock or however have to have a lot of support just simply needs to be in motion and make an express claim and then those standards are met here so it is essentially a proper pro se motion because the defendant being represented by counsel only has the ability to make this type premature and ineffective with respect to the fairness issue but if i doubt it's new views of discretion standard and i think under the sand in case things that are that arise subsequently in the record like here the but the trial court also did not actually rule in this case that the p s i i made any difference in terms of the bona fide doubt issues so without also be an example though of in a potential and effectiveness in the defense counsel would have had the opportunity after the p s i was prepared to ask the court to reconsider earlier rulings to reverse itself the trial court has the power to do it right if the defense had upon either have if the claim is they failed to investigate an incident of history or upon learning mental health history didn't properly try to attempt a catalyst on it so they would not get relief unless they show a prejudice which requires a reasonable probability court that doesn't mean that he is unable to understand the nature and purpose of proceedings or to assist in his own defense counsel with the hindsight the information contained in the p s i guess for me as a trial court i would be thinking well i thought he was just trying to do a trial i'm just trying to get out of it but now i've got this additional information and maybe he wasn't just trying to be difficult to get out of going to trial well you just speak you know the fact that we can utilize information general doubt after the fact is it isn't bad a reasonable inference it's it could be an inference that could be drawn that the defense that the defendant's agitation was caused by an underlying mental disorder but that doesn't a person can be mentally unsound but still be fit in the context of being  trial because fitness for trials is very limited concept and the defendant could have a depressive episode could be agitated and could still be fed in the terms of having these two fundamental characteristics the abilities not the willingness the abilities how light see a particular defendant who was essentially i'm willing to cooperate with the court in their counsel and this sort of like behavior courts have to be extremely cautious and encouraging or court who is trying to make sure they're making it on the record waiver of their rights to i don't understand there at piedmont just about their right to be present for her trial and they get on the record waiver of that explicit waiver to protect the record to protect their rights court did that and i certainly would not want this courage something i understand your question i'm just simply trying to make the point that the trial court went up above and beyond the duty and it was very admirable in terms of protecting the record protecting the defense right as such that's something that should be encouraged to situation my point is the defendant at the trial court did not even have to engage in those steps in order for the defendant to have forfeited the right to be present and have that judgment be affirmed over the argument that he somehow an adequately waived his right to be priceless flip that if i had read this p s i i i would have wondered whether or not i should have been or the verdict of guilty but mentally ill if i w trial which would have prompted me to take into account the male will notice that may have contributed to his outburst but also sure that's true because i'm not sure he beat the definitive standard requires a different retrial result and because the difference between mentally ill and guilty i'm sorry guilty but mentally ill and guilty has no real practical impact i think the cases i found that might have to say something like that because there is no actual requirement that there's no real practical difference between two sort of burdick's so there's no actual prejudice like something less than that saying the defense was raised right which mentally over it has no sixth amendment constitutional implication that's my understanding practically here though if the the the mitigation from the mental illness if that's given to the court then whether the the actual verdict was l especially on a cold record it with the reaping court cannot see exactly what was going on that has to be something that has to be extremely obvious and it very clear and obvious reversible error in order to remedy offense very recently or that is it also important note this is the doubled maximum term a sixty year or so it's actually six to sixty and so to six thirty six twenty two is actually in the lower half of that range release or fifty percent seventy five or eighty five just you know i'm i believe it's fifty percent because it has to be over two hundred grams for the seventy five percent statute to take effect i don't believe he had one hundred grams so  defense counsel filed a motion to reconsider the sentence on and on the same day that defendant also mailed a pro se petition which alleged ineffective assistance of counsel the trial court did not address the ineffective assistance claim nor did it dispose of his spending pro se motion nonetheless hours frame court address that ineffective assistance counsel claim and argue and held that even a bare allegation of ineffective assistance of counsel requires an inquiry by the trial court our supreme court did not suggest that the appeal was premature because the trial court did not dispose of the petition rather it simply remanded the case to the trial court for a crime called hearing it didn't say that it could not do that it it was the same situation as in this case and so this too is what mr bell is requesting a crank call here and because the trial court did not address his ineffective where as fires the state's argument about prejudice goes when it concerns when it concerns counsel here there was prejudice to mr mr bell his council's failure to raise his fitness as an issue alternately ended up and mr bell losing his right to be present for his trial because he was mentally unfit at the time the court  based off of his mental and fitness that he was waiving his right to be present at trial this is prejudicial so mr bell was prejudiced by the trial counsel's and effectiveness rushed to start his trial and ignored some clear signs of his unfairness mr velo employers this court to please not ignore him the way that the trial court and council did and remand his case for a