those circumstances the question is does section five five for a code of corrections limit the trial judge to imposing a sentence of not more than the ten year sentence that was originally in pol for the offense it's a convoluted question i know but the answer is easy we submit that the answer the question should be answered in the affirmative that the trial work was limited by section firefighter for a the sentences they realized that consecutive sentences had to be in polls for aggravated criminal sexual assault the parties also discussed whether there would be a firearms and handsome men for weiner or both of the class mills alternately it was decided that there would not be one for the armed robbery because and on had already been declared unconstitutional it was also decided that there was no impediment to a offense made concurrent to a nine year sentence for armed robbery then paul is a fairly similar sentence of ten years for aggravated criminal sexual assault and pursuant to the discussion that they sentence that was originally you hold the judge impose a sentence of sixteen years of imprisonment and here we are our argument on appeal is that the trial judge was limited by five f approaches to it and sense of extended term for example you start with a six to thirty and you increase the range for the maximum to come six to sixty on our violence statute for example enhancement provisions like an extended term for example of the drug offenses and you change both the minimum and the maximum and so a six to thirty becomes nine to forty this statute that requires the enhance not talk about a single sentence with their range of six plus fifteen twenty want all to thirty plus fifteen forty five it to is not set up the new range of twenty one to forty five what  talks about very specifically in this quoted a number of times in the brief because this is the essence of the argument here it says that they turn up fifteen years shall be added to that term of imprisonment imposed by the corps and i respectfully submit that the only way they can reasonably be read is that there is a term of imprisonment imposed by a court here ten years and there is a fifteen year and addition sixteen twenty five years and within the department of corrections it is now going to be handled and is two separate or three separate sentences that have to be served it would be a single the department of  to point and there simply would have created confusion quite clearly the easiest thing for him to do was to list it with a single number of twenty five years even though on under the statute that twenty five years would be can distinction simply because five five for a as opposed to five the warm up see the point here is that the judge in the court environs did not consider the how the final in term of years of twenty five years is actually put together in the court and bar is also created an absolute legal fiction and said that the original sentence that had been i the sentence on the charge and really criminal sexual assault from twenty five years to sixteen years only fans his client fails the defendant and is attempting to frame his twenty five year the amendment prior to the amendment the defendant would have been subject to classics felony sentencing for aggravated criminal sexual assault of six to thirty years in this case the defendant was successful  considered the factors in aggravation handmade nation and considered the defendants crime record in this case the defendant is out of prison for less than three weeks when he committed aggravating criminal sexual assault the defendant's sixteen year sentence all remain in service to protect the public and provide strict correctional treatment and it falls squarely within the guidelines of class that's felony sentencing i'll keep it short and sweet if there are no further questions offense is worth this much time one would have expected to see a reduction in murder sentences for example when we went to one hundred percent comp because the judges were saying ok twenty years i know that means can i really want twenty stories you have to give aggravated criminal sexual assault and i have a hang on top of that i'm giving you fifteen years who are committing this offense while using a firearm so i think whatever rough justice might be cheap in other cases that was not really what was being done here i'd like to address just briefly the court at least a suggestion that what this court was trying to do with manning his case for resentencing i'm glad they didn't repeat consider any evidence that was presented as to his subsequent counter since the time of the original sentencing that he by statute the case went back and this is what the judge was supposed to do so he made the attempt to establish mitigation on we're not arguing that there was sufficient mitigation to require a reduction but he attempted that when this second piece factory sentencing you did exactly what you were  quired to do what he needed to do in fairness to bowl this stayed and defended you gave them the opportunity both parties the opportunity to present additional evidence by the state and needs to look at the language of fire fire for aid and realize that fire fire for a r s and increased sentence here the court should then go on to reduce the sentence of sixteen years that was imposed on re sentencing to the original term of ten years and we asked for that really