accepted the testimony does not necessarily mean it was reasonable to do so and under that case it also states reasonable people may act unreasonably in certain situations is the issue there are you seeing that it should've been prevented itself testified that in august of twenty teen which was the month that he was charged mrs johnson said to her sister i know you didn't do it i'm doing this to get back at him for cheating on me there's for example something inconsistency that the order of protection hearing she said that there was no struggle during the border protection hearing the trial said there was a struggle that's significant to bring the fact that that's an element of trial he says she was these are certainly significant because taken as a whole combined with additional impeachments from the states from the statement she made to the police it renders her certainly as a client's anger i understand he maintains an innocence he said that this was completely consensual the parties get two very different versions of what happened on april eleventh and particularly because trauma person zero point four his sister had been murdered by her boyfriend ninety ninety two and she had done to mr violence fund raising and voluntary and this was a particularly sensitive issue and for him to be accused of it he was very angry and landed they went to the parking lot at the motel six they were sitting there reminiscing about the end of their relationship reflecting on it it was a somber moment and they decided to get a hotel room he also wanted a divorce correct he filed because after that ok but is there any doubt that over a period of time he's sending her roses and current soon and going to see her and maybe at work to talk about these things and talks from user perspective world that he didn't want to get a divorce i believe that those are some of the things that were brought out however she needed to communicate with her regarding certain issues such as child support and child custody she refused to communicate with him on the record to show that she was not welcoming of this these gestures but it also shows that they are you know tactically and had a screaming conversation it's everything was contentious m phone number several times and additionally she had actually gone to see him in march and hospital which goes against her testimony that she wanted nothing to do with him which again i think is a significant factor situation but the other offenses were not mandatory he was found not guilty of several and then he was found guilty of aggravated domestic abuse and we did battery something is is he why did it turn out like this it certainly gave her additional charge for her opinion particularly where his background was so clear this was yes and there were questions that he would be asked and he would have to answer did the judge make any reference to the easy answers or he is a coup operation with the actual pre sentencing valuation you know she mentioned as she she considered at ok great she only in your in your opinion she only used the sex and value sex offender evaluation for purposes of visual information on that particular portion the rest of the exam it's not clear exactly what she considered well and of course by all accounts there wasn't much for her to consider in terms of a sex evaluation because he answered the same way to every single question so what could she have used it for in terms of a sex evaluation there were four tests administered be answered he answered the questions the same that was for one type of test there were other evaluations that were found that were not necessarily against him but again the fact that this was used and considered and was used to bolster her understanding of him and who he was is unfair and moreover the fact that the prosecution relied on it still heavily in the arguments and then the defense was as on a reasonable doubt reverse the convictions as  any issue with the defendant's testimony about which he is i guess we will call it just for purposes of this argument quick to anger no tension yes and that's specifically what the co the record find him incredible but use that as sort of in here guys in his testimony compared to the other corroborate testimony to stay present so if the court doesn't have any questions at this point i think about the second point the sex offender evaluation knew when he was convicted of the criminal sexual abuse that he was going to have to go to prison that's for some period of time yes so that's in this mix should the trial court then see ok or make some also indicates that it's on the theory to be and begins so in regards to that we have to look at what the legislature intended when they did use the word shale and in this case we do have a legislative history although ease limited the legislative the new the new way in the law is it best practices to do this best practice is to do this judges are instructed to look at best practices wouldn't it have been a better practice especially in this case to say present well we have and i'm sure you're aware i can't give you names but we can't reverse we and improper factors and been considered because we cannot see the level to which the consideration impacted th sentence and assuming with his record he could have gotten the forty year period so if we if the judge doesn't tell us and doesn't say look i learned this i don't need it of trial and along with your demeanor in trial and i reckon a trial that's why i'm getting the sense that the judge chris will ever actually mention the pre sentence report when she made this determination yes and that being considered for parole they can get a valuation but those are her probation likely from just the facts the unlawful restraint was a sexually motivated crime your position is jihad this is mandatory since there was criminal sexual abuse he was going to have to go to changed to say shamrocks but we have to also read in terms of how cases come before court we have many cases where there is probation being considered done for offenses or he's yel or she's eligible for probation or fixes but to fix the fence is a mandatory criminal is a mandatory jail sentence that situation rather than the statutory authority might create the ambiguity  fashion thank you