stevens in the absence of a hearing in the absence of the parties presents without notice without the right to counsel without the ability to present mitigation evidence without any other rights that he was entitled to either syncing statute under the illinois constitution under the united states constitution and in contravention of this court's order your honor mr stevens sentence was actively double outside of his presence with no notice or anything five three d which states that in any case when a sentence originally imposed is vacated the case shall be remanded to the court and the trial court show hold a hearing under section five dash four dash one which may include evidence of the defendant's light moral character and occupation during the time since the original sentence was and this statute incorporates the sentencing statute five dash four dash one of the code which says that the defendant also has the right to make a statement on his by the experts he was examined a couple years earlier i believe in two thousand and two and two thousand and three i was somewhat removed if you're talking trying to utilize that data for business purposes year gap between the examination of the defendant and the time of trial right there is no evidence on the record that mr stevens mental abilities that they change or improve during the time between  legal proceedings and he's able to assist the defense counsel in his defense your honor and mr stevens alleges that in his petition that he was not able to assist in his defense and if he had been competent he might have testified that he might have testified at the motion hearing or a trial where your honor it is at least arguable that the same deficiencies that the experts found to render mr s a knowing your honor may have impacted his ability to understand the nature of the legal proceedings and to work with his attorney the experts found it that mr stevens impairments were substantial his i q was a sixty four which is the lowest temperature out of the population he didn't fully understand what a public defender was he was madly mentally retarded and only read a kindergarten level at difficulty communicating did not understand what a right was didn't know the significance of having a lawyer and the list goes on and on and on do that would give a reasonable attorney some focus that he needs a witness to what did he do he just was somebody who had difficulty understanding things he didn't like that's what it looks like to me another factor this should be consider is the prior medical opinion as to mr stevens competency and here we don't have just one fire medical opinion we have three and they all say that he was stanley impair he had problems communicating  information problems understanding things about what the role of the lawyer is these are things that goes well but wasn't the value of that expert testimony undermined by the court didn't the court look at because the court never rejected the medical findings of these actors there's probably objected their legal conclusions because of the methods that the expert used because one expert did not view the videotape and another expert reviewed the repeat the i report of another expert so th always there base is only what this man said to that and after he was imprisoned and he talked to all the prison lawyers see all this comes into play here so needs to be or at last i'm sick of going into your rebuttal time and sorry on your honor's would argue is that aside from the legal conclusion whether or not he was able to waive miranda these experts their testimony reveal specific facts that would go to someone's ability to understand legal proceedings and the ability to be able to assist the defendant he's not sure what the role of all of a lawyer that's a problem here and we'd argue that aside from the legal conclusions of the that we don't get to answer that question because the defendant did include this issue in his post in his post conviction petition unfortunately your honour's do not share the same supervisory authority that the only supreme court doesn't can't reach issues that were not raised and the post conviction petition he raised this issue for the first time in direct appeal as a result of that pursuant to the i was conviction hearing act he has forfeited review of this issue on appeal on this case he attempts to suggest th issue was void as opposed to voidable he has not established there is a lack of jurisdiction in this case he has not established that the that the truck words order in this case was for the initial sentencing order in this case directing it back for and because he got consecutive quote scuse me he got concurrent time as opposed to consecutive time consisted of a void order this is merely avoidable order he has not shown that there is any reason for this or tribute this issue not at this time and we ask that you you find that bennett has forfeited review of this issue as far as the acceptance of a writing that does not conform to the definition of an affidavit this the defendant's failure recently you disagree with our position on this case i know that there's also a case before the own noise supreme court people versus holds a cruise in which the second stage review niche the supreme court will be deciding the issue of the the defendant acknowledges he can't point to any irrational behavior on the part of the defendant any trial demeanor by the defendant or any prior medical fenians on top and it's to stand trial and instead he relies on the testimony of three shanklin what you had was the defendant pled guilty and you had a sentencing hearing in this case as part of the sentencing hearing there was a hospital report attached they are in that hospital we court there  was reports that he had been hospitalized three times for mental health conditions and that he had a history of mental health treatment in shanklin the fourth district looked at that and said we have no i rebutted testimony or any any any for the same types of evidence that was used in shanklin times of capacity and ability to communicate and understand but again in shaping you didn't have you there was nothing to case in which he found that those experts that their testimony was quote unquote significantly defective you also have this court's decision when it reviewed the motion at the trial level and when they reviewed it they found or should say you found that the conclusions were meritless they didn't believe this point didn't believe the experts conclusions when they reviewed it on direct appeal that's what he's relying on the judge step by step went through and the three experts went through and decided this is why we shouldn't believe this expert this is why we shouldn't believe the conclusions the defendant claims that they didn't do that take they they will close off on that curious what the  i mean when you see him in the court all the time that one expert or doctor relies on the evaluation on the report of another that's allowed why would it not have been allowed in th case i find i think what happened was that the traffic court in this case found that these things the experts they did the subsequent evaluation rely too heavily on what the first case and what the on the experts findings were the first expert who evaluated him and in the instance of the third expert who evaluated dr goodman admitted she didn't even review the videotape statement that he made the he the experts for admitted that they didn't know that he had been arrested her nine times for prior you know criminal offenses that he'd been advice of his miranda rights on these other cases there are a lot of things that these experts didn't take into consideration and that's what the trucker emphasized and it's finding in this case and again i think the trial court conclude that they had improper basis in other words ok this man is claiming and they're listening to him that he doesn't understand anything about who is who or what who the lawyers are represented yet he had been in the criminal justice system eight years and have been through this process eight times and they didn't know there and so the basis therefore is something that the judge did not believe it was and that that's a question they think i think they didn't and they didn't really detention it was made its way in the fact that he had some familiarity with with drug charges but here he was up on a murder charge and there was nothing in his in this past that had allow change for you based on what the offenses miranda's ran to you you get the same miranda rights whether or not you're arrested for murder whether or not you're arrested for a drug offense that doesn't change and i think the important thing that i'd like to point out is that fitness in this case a bona fide in people versus more cited in my in my brief and it says the mere fact that it then has men not limited mental capacity alone does not raise a bonafide doubt a fitness for a trial he's merely reliant on a limited mental capacity to find at capacity to understand what is going on what he can have to do he can have a limited mental capacity that doesn't mean that there is a bonafide out of his fitness to stand trial you can have someone who has limited mental capacity but that doesn't necessarily equate appeal in his subs and kill a thirty could possibly raise them in a federal hate us court corpus petition this contention must fail where the kitchen is arguments based on conjecture and speculation as to how the federal court in this case would rule defendant in this case has not also presented a claim involving the situation it is contrary to federal law is a term by the united states supreme court and that's necessary in order to file a federal petition therefore at this he can file a subsequent the titian raising those claims and it's fair question causing prejudice and and people versus this this this division most recently found that if it's not in your petition you wave it it's not in there in this case the sentencing hearing was not in his petition therefore it's not before this court it should be before this court if you think you his allegations must be taken as true at this stage they are not rebut it by the record this claim is arguable it is not delusional it is based on the record it is based on the expert opinions of three medical professionals who concluded that mr steven