we can't we can't know what the judge what the sentencing judge would have done had he known he had the discretion to the lesser term we don't we don't know what he would have done we can substantial likelihood that mr williams would receive a more favorable sentence if this were mandatory sentencing first and looking at the sentencing hearing at the first round of sentencing the defense actually asked the court to run the life term concurrently and the court declined to do so because the court found that there was an increase of harm to the victims in transporting them across i believe one was a very busy intersection sentence the court specifically said that he firmly believes that the penal consequences are appropriate so the court's own comments before knowing that it have the discretion to stay there is a lower term greater term did indicate that this was a fair sentence so that's the first way we know that there's no substantial likelihood that the defense with the entitle to more favorable sentence the second point is a little bit more complicated and i wish i had prepared that for this court because it involves some of the finer points of california sentencing which i don't profess to be an expert in but to try to explain the simply basically there were three separate crimes here the first and contain five paths so you have the upper the kid the kidnapping and robbery and the robbery for one victim then for the second victim you also have a robbery and another kidnapping court has decided to exercise its discretion for the lesser term he would still be imposing a life sentence on the third victim that would be the only choice as to that so we still have one my sentence here and then  three counts but two different mix things we also have a situation where he could have exercise discretion as to the robbery or the kidnap for robbery but that was the second thing it was only the kidnapping for  there's even assuming he exercised discretion we still have that life sentence right there with the second victim and just to determine a term with that so even asked the court  the yes and what what i don't want the court to do is kind of bleed over well when he found it consecutively or concurrently he already demonstrated in the previous sense in saying that he would have imposed that consecutively it's just a matter of whether he would have chosen between what the victims had the robbery and the kidnapping for operates to lower terms even if he had chosen at least still have at least to my sentence says that would had to be at least dealt with if you feel all of this in your record not very effectively now i'm sorry to say i don't recall violation it's object to a harmless error analysis i would submit it is i think this case presents an extremely rare situation where an ex post facto violation might not have the substantial effect on all the cases whether it's prejudicial but it's a unique situation given the construction of the different counts against the defendant in conjunction with the fact that we had a first sentencing hearing where the court really need his conclu most recent cases neither first united states it does not include within that list an ex post facto violation and if you look at the facts of murder stuff i recall correctly that was a case where the removal discretion and eyes or it couldn't there was no way of knowing whether or not it was towards further detriment of the defendant or it actually was so in looking at the facts of the cases that have been remanded back from the sentencing it is always clear that the defendant would have gotten a more favorable result if if the trial court has the discretion to do so or the record was just absolutely silent on that point here we do have a lot of indications just by the structure of the counts and the court's comments that there is no substantial likelihood that he will receive a more favorable sentence must the court has any further questions i would submit thank you very much