and because the trial judge has sentencing expressed doubts and some questions and some concern about having to impose the minimum sentence of four years for a criminal sexual assault eight to two things i'd ask the court to consider this issue is not about this is not a reasoned our not argue that under no circumstances for the jury have found this person guilty under the evidence as it was here sexual assault cases all the time and this is this case is very different circumstances of the offense and the offender it's a very different mr baron context of this case and ask you for what is what should be a cautiously applied remedy and so i'm asking the court reconsider the entire context of the case prior to trial the defendant was permitted to travel by the trial judge so again this is a criminal sexual assault case and actually was char's as an aggravated criminal sexual assault case if the judge permitted on mr barron to travel with his family gave him bond for the entirety of the proceeding including after conviction and very very unusual i would submit at sentencing the prosecution here greed that there were no no aggravating factors other than the conviction for the offense itself again very unusual and the prosecutor recommended the minimum sentence of four years i would submit that that's a very unusual situation for your honour's to see weigh those as as to my argument that the judge had doubts about having to having to impose a four year sentence these kind of comments i think it's safe to say are incredibly rare where the judge compliments the defendant on the entirety of his life and says that he's a good person a solid young man but that he has to give him four years and not get into those specific comments at a moment  offense sought to be reduced to is a lesser included offense then we agree that it is if there is an evidentiary weakness in the evidence in the state's case in the evidence and if the judge expressed his concern different because it's one where the sufficiency of the evidence was actually question but the court the quote that i would ask the court from that case is that rule six fifteen b three provides cited by counsel in history it was interesting about that basis the that case which he cites for the proposition that well should do this actually use the evidentiary weakness standard to use the is and how weak the evidence is and what the judge said yes to the weakness of the case your honour's note first that this case was charged as she couldn't give incentives because she was  this is an offense that according to the evidence happened around four o'clock in the morning the victim had been out drinking that night to extent that she testified that she would not and should not have driven a car she went to sleep  bed in her house three story house and then was awakened to some degree when when she felt she thought she felt a touch now if you read her testimony which i'm sure your honour's haven't and will read her testimony very close closely what we see is a person who like we have all been something happens in the night and and you shaking the cobwebs trying to figure out what's going on she said as a matter of fact when she was first touch that she started to go back to sleep she thought it was maybe a dream and that oh maybe her boyfriend was in bed with her of woke up sat up and rubbed her eyes trying to figure out what was going on and again you know the word i used in my brief and i would again use is hazy as person again as we all have been in the middle of the night in her room in a corner of her room cowering he got up apologized and headed for the stairs and she threw him down the stairs the ceiling islands it's involved in this case you all of this trial judges and so i think you can relate to well this is this is something that we we don't see very often enough in felony serious felony cases  start to this portion of his comments he said this is not a one sided issue so this is a two sided thing really was take a good close look at mr bear he then went on to say again i did not see the turns in rehabilitation really don't on this case because i don't think you'll ever do this kind of half again he said it's unfortunate for them both fortunately truth and i have to send you to the department of corrections he said if probation had been available i don't think i would have done that but it would have made it a lot more difficult his work again read the trial lawyer there's something in between four years for criminal sexual assault and probation and that is the lesser amount of time one to three years that is the statutory sentence for criminal sexual abuse and that's why we're asking that this sh this victim went in there on purpose seeking to do this committed a violent act of full sexual penetration with his sex organs and that's situation that involves such a lack of justice and a lack of violence and these incredible fast only some of which i've taken the time to go into this morning that that could occur and that's why  isn't if there is a case where the rule should be applied under the standard that i've discussed this is the one this isn't the one and there is no such case this court to consider that runs runners as i said i'm sure mr mansion if i were doing things this what should happen and i think that is simply not and should not be the law in illinois the evidentiary weaknesses alleged by the defendant by his own cases this is not the type of evidentiary weakness that would even all allow the reduction because of evidentiary weakness and dissatisfaction and just because the the sympathetic person that he's a good candidate for not repeat not repeating his not mean he is dissatisfied with the sentencing structure this is not one of the cases where the trial court says i wish i could give you something less than the four years i'm required to give he distaste the law that says that probation is not an option and i wouldn't have given anyway this is not a case were there's an evidence for weakness or a dissatisfaction with the sentence that would even allow i defend this theory to be applied or a dissatisfaction should be rejected and should simply not be followed by this i think that this the six fifteen b should be limited strictly to the situations as  that is exactly what we have here we have a defendant who doesn't like the results and wants this court to ignore everything else and reduce the sentence again i suggest this is no not much different than the whole nullification we try to get the jury to ignore the law ignore the facts ignore everything and reese the result you want because you're sorry for the defendant or he's such a nice guy and that's what this whole argument boils down to is that hey i should've been charged slue else i should have found guilty of something else i should get something different what the legislation requires and i do not think that six fifteen b was or should be intended for this type of case it's simply be limited to those cases where ellen the this has not been proven and that case where were the question then becomes you let the defendant walk in please or can he then be convicted of reduce the degree of the offense which is the a problem was that i don't know how much more plain that could be in terms of the authority that this or this it would get and honestly i think it would just be wrong and unjust for or any court to say you know there may be a just result that we would like to get here you have to hear but we can't do it that's the inability to provide justice that's the inability to look at one where the rule says that the court may reverse term or modify the judgment or remember one of them would be superfluous obviously the three is intended to provide a different remedy than what than what the one provides and so the fact that there is eighty three that says this very clear plain language suggests that the supreme court wanted appellate courts to be able to do so i said what we're asking you to do and more importantly or just just as importantly the case was unfair that's all he argued in court expressly said well he's not arguing eventually witness so we we can't go there although the court accepted that that was the standard should the apollo have have made that argument