that was a day when the defendant was told by his then wife that because l m r had a dance recital on saturday game with the defendant i remember that night one of those terrible i gave my season tickets to someone else because i didn't want to drive on the other hand they want to  don't you get a hotel room with sharia this is one to testify at trial that she was aware that in fact not only had the defendant molested her daughter his stepdaughter but also the lusted on the eighteenth of february and fair for a third two thousand and thirteen l m r throughout the trial trial constantly on parker attempted to get in evidence of the custody proceedings that were taking place or could or might take place but for these allegations judge nancy fahy denied that at every turn with the idea that was unconnected to the case itself liam parker throughout the trial attempted through paris office of proof to show that jodi was motivated a mentally categorize it as the family law case had nothing to do with well the family law case itself dissolution he was pressed on the other hand the issue was the custody of bloated  rebel in a phone call even said that she began these proceedings and she didn't know how to stop them leon parker attempted to interview said evidence and was told that it was hearsay had the custody proceedings been invented it would have been in fact an admission of a party opponent and should have been allowed to counsel with your client's testimony wasn't there evidence in the record regarding evidence no this was the investigator i think it seems hope he's now working for chief justice or justice garment that there was no physical evidence there was nothing there was a delay in reporting was going on in the family law case both have had you been permitted to have a testimony about custody pursuit things and the effect of that and the testimony supporting that from three different  he was a boyfriend not he testified right testified that it was hot on the ground and he talked about the fact that she had planned to move out of the house not that she indicated that she found this out and just scramble to move out quickly he a question about the defendant's corroboration and that more testimony been allowed than just his assertion i think there would have been a different the next issue that i think is probably the most coincidental in time given the circumstances was the fact of judge nancy fahy ninety four and from prosecutor browser fish whether or not an offer had been made to the the defen on my involvement in the case began after kevin sanborn the attorney at the sentencing hearing was involved and i attempted to advise both judge yarmouth in a motion stanley from nancy fahy and the effect it would have aside from what missouri vs fry talks about is the ability for the sentencing judge to consider the value that the state put on the case they offered the process but mr brusqueness made was probation to one count granted it was rejected at the sentencing hearing had judge baking know that from a decision could or might have been different to giving this extensive victim impact statement kevin sanborn hardly cross examined our this statement is replete with bad acts evidence i appreciate fact that the government could have brought the bad acts in but with evidence not what a statement without cross examination made in writing no indication whether or not it was done completely  then she ties into the abuse that he was found guilty of with logan and that goes on and on and on and then jodi's permitted to given victim impact state how jodi is a victim is beyond me the rest of the sentencing hearing was even further and i never spoke out anything like this in thirty seven years when sam or his defense attorney tells the judge what he sent and of a threatening a teacher they call a recess massive numbers deputies those of you have been to from a county judge babies courtroom is very large the deputies come in all of the quote unquote victims go into a corner and somehow judge nancy faith is not going to consider that that is the height of ineffective assistance of counsel and it certainly changed the outcome the allegation that was proven was between two weeks in february that there was s conduct with a family member but instead of considering a sentence for its lower range he gets twenty years i'm really just charged from the military no prior criminal history the allegations of cheyanne have been discredited by the jerker the only reason this case ever became a verdict was when judge bay he chose to give that instruction and about twenty five minutes later the jury reached the conclusion perhaps a compromise given the bit which would have but for the court to say now that somehow this sentencing hearing was fair and impartial you've got the defense attorney disclosing evidence to the judge and then the judge considering that immediately judge phase he's practiced with those of you who may not know is the defendant hans o the right to the bench and speak directly to the judge for his right about curation and then she pronounced sentence mr rebel is an individual that expresses himself he makes visual expression and she took that into account now it should take into account at the sentencing hearing she said he was smirking throughout the trial now to me if that's not part of the record i don't think the court consider this essentially neither leon parker samberg had the opportunity to correct it they shal expressions by litigants are not unusual nervousness things of that nature that doesn't necessarily mean disrespect to the court so that's true isn't that significant wieners judges we see how kinds of things in and you know we've learned to put them aside and only consider what's relevant and what's appropriate i appreciate that but she said specifically  disrespectful in times out of his conduct during the trial and when witnesses were on the stand in their facial expressions that you were just referencing is there anything in the record indicating that she specifically indicated that she was considering the fact that his attorney had said that he was about to get upset and get violent over their actions calling in the deputies but you're correct the other part about this case was how and as to what truly is a victim statute says a victim of violent crime well does that mean that jodi rebel was able to do that i don't think so does that mean they quit case but the victim who was not believed by the jury or just the facts there isn't title to give the pickton impact statement i'm in the cumulative error here both in the trial and in the sentencing it is undeniable the record the requirement that motions to be read reconsider census be filed it's been around for some time but the rules and how they're both be reconsidered would think that after this event the sentencing hearing either judge bay he should have recused herself and had another judge conduct a new sentencing hearing or as we asked judge darman to do find that she was  or kevin samberg should not have said wouldn't it let's start over it's only a sentencing hearing but let's do it for the right reasons let's not get all these other factors resulting in a twenty year s state asked for thirty years so i guess we should be thankful that but twenty years to acts of misconduct with a thirteen year old between may february the third of february the eighteen is not a twenty year sentence particularly given the recent emphasis of course to get probation granted it was not a professional offense but the idea is less take advantage some of these community resources let's stop war there should have been some modest sentence granted he deserved to be punished on the verdict but that's twenty year sentence was excessive and i think i've pointed out here is were it was excessive lester's other questions as for the first argument the trial court did not air in failing to inquire about any possible plea negotiations that took place there's nothing in the record that indicates any plea negotiations ever did take place in this case the only citation to any possible plea negotiations was the motion for bond on appeal but that motion only presume that negotiations existed is it a requirement i think i would submit i know i argued in my  not a hard fast rule just a statement went over the preflight checklist thing it williams of course the distinguishing part of williams as a there was evidence in the record of a concrete offer that counsel failed to relay to negotiations i do not i i would submit that in that case that the issue was counsel error and failing to relay of concrete negotiation or offer that was on the record today defendant that was the issue of lawyers here there's apparently the argument is a negotiation the trial court in every criminal case in illinois needs to ask before trial begins about any possible plea negotiations that might have to take place clearly that is not a requirement williams does not make that a requirement there was no air here assuming there was errors harmless beyond reasonable doubt the only prejudice defendant points to again he doesn't argue that he would have taken a plea offer or that counsel failed to relay a plea offer to him the only argues that his sentence wouldn't have been this harsh i assuming errors harmless beyond a reasonable doubt the next argument is the evidence of the divorce proceeding for custody proceeding being excluded first offended doesn't point to any actual evidence or points of evidence in the force proceedings that should have been included that were excluded defense i think the state filed the motion eliminated begin with that excluded the proceedings however i think the theory that they were going for is the fact that the defendant's ex wife had a motive to lie and fabricate i mean that what the the theory they were going for that's what counsel argued extensively in closing argument was that she was mad that different was cheating on her therefore fabricating a case fabricating these allegations with alomar against defendant the jury heard all this the jury heard  about his ex wife knowing about his girlfriend and planning on leaving the defendant the jury heard his current wife testified that she was the girlfriend at the time the defendant was still married to jodi revel so there was corroborated as far as that is needed for the fact that jodi had a motive to lie or fabricate this these allegations and again that was the prior main part of defense counsel's closing argument was this fabrication theory of the jury were rightly found that was untrue but that was the theory that as far as the other offers of proof they were from people who didn't testify and they contain multilevel hearsay statements having to do with a phone call between one person and another person and then another person overhearing this phone call clearly they were multilevel here to say statements and they were by witnesses who never did testify the next argument was ineffective assistance at sentencing we have to put ourselves in the position of the attorney at the time that he made this statement he tells the judge the defendant is unhappy with me representing him thank you to new to represent him he's going to make a motion or a scene he did this in the form of asking for a continuance which the prosecution objected to they granted a recess when the recess comes back counsel clarifies multiple times to the trial for i misheard or defendant apparently it was probably a hushed courtroom setting defendants whispering through on the mysterious defend defense that he didn't want to make a scene or a motion that the sentencing hearing went on without a hitch after that this was not ineffective assistance i would submit that this is exactly what counsel should have done at that time defendant was saying he didn't want counsel represented anymore at least that's what counsel her i don't want you to represent me and if you do i'm going to make a scene or commotion one accounts defendant however unwise it may be as a right to represent himself at that point of counsel says nothing the defendant has a color will claim on appeal that his right to represent suffer representation is violated at that point so he has a he has an obligation to inform the trial court that he doesn't want to represent him anymore at that point second from what he heard although it was a miscommunication at that point he thought there might be a commotion if he did indeed to represent the defendant for the safety of everyone involved that's him that's responsibility of the of the council to let the trial court know and let everyone in the trial in the courtroom know that there may be a promotion even defended definit might be the most likely want to get injured if you cause the commotion if apparently there are a lot of bailiffs in the courtroom at the time so  again it ended up being a miscommunication however council reiterated numerous times that it was a miscommunication that he didn't hear miss mishear defendant after the recess was taken so there is it was not objective  their right mind is not going to take a miscommunication and attribute it to defendant to fashion a harsher sentence the only time trial court brings up the defendant's behaviors during trial in times where he took the trial lightly or was smirking and smiling clearly the sentencing hearing was not a one of those times where he was smirking and smiling if he didn't want counsel represent him any more and was angry enough to make a scene this was not one of those times where he was supposedly smirking and smiling so clearly the trial court put no weight on this miscommunication as they should have and there was no prejudice either so that counsel clearly was not deprived of effective assistance of counsel the final argument was the excessive sentence one i'll just say that the ra thirty different i got twenty it's in the middle of the range of upper middle two years above the median if so as the concessionary limits there are multiple aggravating factors that the trial court consider trial court also properly considered the mitigating factors and defendant was not improperly sentenced also there was no improper evidence that made it at the sentencing hearing c f testified yes defendant sexually assaulted me to her multiple years it's well settled i would say that it might have been improper for that to have gone on that didn't prejudice defendant course at that at the time the trial court actually doesn't mention the other bad ac was subject to cross examination as was jodi which i'm guessing one of the question would be you don't have any you have any personal knowledge of this action as justice but was talking about but the point is that other criminal conduct for even when defendant isn't charged with anything is routinely allowed in sentencing hearings and this is not this was not an exception tom and i would submit that if the trial court did consider the bad acts of force the c f testimony and statement was much stronger evidence then again their party allegation from from purely so i would say there are no questions i think court thank of people indicated that there was no reference in the record to the probation office i would suggest one c two to six the common law record my motion for such  substitution of judge facie clearly said sites that it was a few did and the aspect about this being part of the record both in williams and in missouri vs from the allegation is my attorney never told me about the government's offer well these are postcondition this this is the defendant say well there is no evidence in the record of those cases either so the ability to prove or disprove the existence of an offer is difficult however the best extent we could we did prove it and as i said it's in the record but did you allege that it wasn't communicated to your client no we did not that was not the case or not suggest the soul harm here is the sign i'm going to let that affect the sentence it's a factor in that aspect that you should not consider a trial as something that is requires fundamentally just if we do this how this is a bench we're going to happen no no on the other hand i think it's a factor it should be the ability for both sides prosecution and defense to have some sense of only one victim two weeks of a proven abuse there i want to correct one other aspect about this the consul said that there was some cross examination and this is in my reply brief c f victim impact statement goes on for three pages single spaced two pages of questions by mr sanford elem are not as long dictum impact statement two questions of her were corrected what was said he got off stride he was totally off the pace no real argument about statutory factors in mitigation no witnesses presented some character letters but