weighing the factors be statutory range in this case was from six years on the low end a minimum to sixty seven years on the high end broken down that would be sixty years available to the trial court as to count one of predatory criminal sexual assault and a period of probation or three to seven years or incarceration for aggravated criminal sexual abuse your honor in this situation the court found three primary factors  first two over the course of the sentencing hearing in issuing its ruling and again the motion to reconsider that was filed by trial counsel specifically emotional harm to children the fact that the defendant was in a position of trust be considered by the legislature in setting the statutory sentencing range with a minimum of six years and also making this statute a political to the truth in sentencing on provisions of the sentencing code which mandated five percent service time two of the state's information charging the aggravated criminal stuff will abuse charges so essentially that's what the aggravation factors boil down to in the eyes of the trial  there was nothing nothing specific about the individual life facts of the offense or the individualized effects on any of the two particular victims so it seemed to take this case house side of the context of hundred hours community service no adult criminal record for a thirty four year old defendant i would also note as i did in my brief that there was an immediate guilty plea in this case on the defendant was a reign i believe i believe in february at the next pretrial he pled guilty to both counts in an open plea with no consideration from the prosecutor the counts were not a minute amended he would he pled to the counts as they were charged and he faced the mandatory sentencing range after being for six years in a maximum sixty seven years after being fully advised by the court these were mandatory consecutive and eighty five percent charges d p s i revealed that the defendant was sexually abused as a child by both the babysitter and a relative of his parents divorced news that a young age that he had the support of some of his other family including a new spouse and he had children with that new spouse that apparently there were no allegations of abuse related to those children on the defendant was current in his tiles or obligation to his first wife  are supported and not substantially disputed in the record that the defendant was thirty four years old had reasonable rehabilitative tensile based on his age and the l s i swore that was administered by cases we have the defendant convicted of sexual abuse that was also him or herself sexually abused as a child so i think given those circumstances i go back to the legislative scheme involving these type of your honor to correct the post from motion to reconsider the words double enhancement were not used to appears to be a standard motion to reconsider for want of a better term that they argue and the motion to reconsider honestly i don't know why i didn't because he made a double unhandsome and objection when at the sentencing hearing when the court reviewed the  one and in light of the defendants aware of the defense counsel's awareness of the double enhancement principle and number two i believe there is some crossover between the weighing of the factors and the concept of a of a double enhancement it's not entirely clear from the trial court's been through what particularly led to this the sentence the most destructive statement occurred after a motion to reconsider which is after mr wells filed the filed the motion went to trial court and i believe was the last line of the hearing said that the position of trust and between the defendant and the young age of these victims was the primary thing that led the court to the sentence he gave that was the court's statement at the motion to reconsider now that was when in my reviewing the case i decided to add double enhancement the double has been argument to this because that was when the trial court specifically said trust and specifically said youth was the main factors that led to the sentence and at that point obviously it's too late for it to be reconsidered in mr welch is pro motion but i don't think it's too late to be considered to on appeal i don't think it's for it in that context when appellate counsel review of the record would be the first time that direct statement on what led to the sentence w but the factual allegations behind that act that charge said that the defendant placed his fingers on the vagina of the of the victim the statute says this is a little bit different from the other sexual assault statutes was distinguished between sexual penetration and sexual conduct this particular statute says any act of sex sexual contact however slight would give rise to the predatory charge so i don't think that changes what was pled to but i do think that in context of evaluating the seriousness of the offense generally sexual penetration offenses are treated more harshly in the law then sexual conduct offenses we've been dealing with scheme of sex offenses defined in the criminal code the factual base pleading on this information does not allege an act of sexual penetration and i don't believe the video viewed by the that was given i don't know that we have a penetration case here the information in this is a fact leaving jurisdiction certainly doesn't charge factually a penetration case i don't believe there was anything about the of this case or about the emotional harm done to the victim the takes it out of the realm of a normal if there can be such a thing predatory sexual assault case  in any of these cases we have a serious crime in any of these situations the legislature determined serious determined that the the six year prison sentence at a minimum is appropriate but my question is in this case and i guess the basis for this part of my appeal is if this isn't a six year case or a tenured teacher a twelve year case or something that the lower end of this range when the defendant has no priors has a young man was employed is supporting his dependence both ironically the victims and and other children is a low risk therea found on probation staffs when those factors are all in place and we have single count informations that include a twelve year old victim which although youngest is the oldest age that can still fit into the predatory sacked sexual assault statute i don't know how this became a case where you go four and a half times the minimum sentence with those factors in place if we had a younger victim god forbid but if we have a younger victim than twelve again the maximum age where this is goes beyond a m to fifteen year sentence that be one thing if we had past criminal history you would assume those type of re offenders would be at the higher end of the sentencing range if we have someone who was beyond rehabilitation that was a high risk to reinvent that was fifty years old instead of thirty four that had no history of being a productive member of society i would think then maybe we would be into the sentencing period that the judge eventually ended up with but in this particular case i guess and i posed this question in brief if this isn't the lower end of the range case i question what would be in it with the factors that i've just unseated  your honor on on the double enhancement issue something took this case to for me to have time to the minimum sentence something did in spite of the fact that i just that i just pointed offense itself well deterrence for instance not saying deterrence doesn't apply to criminal sexual assault sentences but we have a six to sixty year sentencing range if that's not a did current i don't know what is it eighty five eighty five percent emotional harm there's always going to be emotional harm is because the court noted that is part and parcel to sexual abuse that is why we punish it so harshly that's why we have all the requirements we have in terms of truth of sentencing registration mandatory consecutive in those kinds of things that the legislature recounts or in the position of trust your honor but in dover if there was no psychological harm presented to the trial court psychological expert of ongoing psychological harm i believe that the two victims wrote letters to the court they did not testify at the hearing i also believe that the court reviewed the i know the porter view when you have an issue of a twelve or thirteen year old that's been violated triggering state defendant being sentenced on this particular statute either one of them you're always going to have some kind of emotional harm you're going to have trust issues you're going to have issues where you that the child necessarily doesn't ever want this to happen again and it is protective and offensive and and so forth i did not see anything about this particular case and i didn't see any findings by the trial court sentencing order that were specifically saying these kids are worse than the normal predatory sexual assault victims these this this kid is worse the thirteen year old victim than the normal thirteen year olds he's assaulted by someone a position of trust or authority or supervision is i didn't see trial court that this was but this was worse the prosecutor made arguments based on the youth of the children he said these children in his arguments will always know what happened to them what were his exact words will anyone will always know what happened to him in that type of case it doesn't take it out of the realm of any other crime in this context do you give any credence to his different because his brother and  there doesn't necessarily mean you say trust thore supervision there isn't always a father or blood relative but in this instance it is you legit with i would think this house makes it more difficult for this family because it is two children in the same family and it's not only a position of a person position of trust is the blood relative father of these than the stepfather who came in the family a year and a half before but your honor in the context of the father yes it's a breach of trust that probably would go beyond what the step father would be you know i don't see on breach of trust but in goes beyond what a high school you agreed your honor if i agree that a parent's closer than a step parent and and family members and household members are closer than uncles cousins and coaches it i agree with that point but your honour's also hit on the point that in most of these type of cases where victims thirteen and twelve when we look at the case law it is typically a family member such as a step father or an uncle or a coach or a parent more of mom or care more of a dad something is typically someone that is at least a household member and it is very often unfortunately a father we're talking about a blood relationship here but in the context of the double enhancement that the defendant was the father and by being such hold the position of trust and i think when you talk about trust in the context of sentencing after the fatherhood relationship the court just pointed out is mentioned in the charging instruments of one of the counts i believe or in double enhancement territory at that time when you spend half of the rationale for your sentence talking about trust and i can really find exactly what the defendant was relying on although it appears that he's emphasizing that remark at the hearing on the motion to reconsider stands when he said he referred to the relationship in the trust between mr and these young victims is what led the court to give distance decay so there is some reference to the word young with respect to victims but i think the point of that sentence was that it was the relationship the fact that this was the natural blood sentence and predatory the count to sentence for criminal sexual i grew big from the sexual abuse i think it was that one had the elements of trust authority or supervision and a trial court consider the nature and statutory penalty of up to sixty years in prison and this is one of the most serious offenses possibly to be committed short of murder so twenty two year sentence is actually below the midpoint of the range and fed it emphasizes well it's still four and a half times yawner i understand the court has to consider the seriousness of the offense but i think in the sentencing context the seriousness you then has to be viewed of trying to write this the best they can but it has to be viewed in the context of someone who has been convicted of committing the offense we understand that predatory steps will criminal solve is one of the most serious crimes recognised under dealing with that's why there's a six to sixty that's that's why it's treated the way it is the legislature account with the seriousness it bends now with in the defendant's commission of that offense which is what we should be looking at the sentencing context what this prior record what this patient what was it like before we found out that that this happened what's he done to accept responsibility those are the things that we're arguing here the court has every right to consider the seriousness of the offense but that was considered by the legislature and things in the text of this particular offense again to the cases generally distinguished we have a range of one a a newborn to a twelve year old that this offense could apply to a charge by the defendant's conduct over thirteen this is a four to fifteen year offense the victim in this case in a predatory case count one was twelve we have sexual conduct sexual penetration those three things that can give rise to the the sexual charge under under illinois sexual assault and abuse law penetration is generally the most seriously punished of those things be paid more attention to these issues so if there is a claim here the right they raised on appeal and given the statute supreme court decisions and this is this court or footing  carry that message back this would be a good thing i will and i don't want to stand here and be critical of counsel that's done this longer than i so i said long as i have i understand the situation in this case your honor that  ordered a sexual a sex offender evaluation for some reason it was never done and i make an ineffective assistance of counsel on that by snow because i don't know the what or the evidence would have been mitigating or aggravating that's i can't even pretend to you that i can satisfy strickland based on that particular thing all i know is and i'll lood is that this sentence guy awful high for someone with no criminal record someway and i don't know whether that was