i'm going to just point out i don't know if you were here when i said these microphones do not amplify it just reports of the people in the back row can't hear what you're saying unless you speak up since the death penalty has been taken away from me sentencing courts consideration the sentence received by mr jackson is the most significant that  it is our position that the sentence imposed even on these facts was excessive and that this could be the end of my argument but i feel so important when the court considers the record at the sentencing hearing what judge joy should only be imposed upon a strong conviction that the facts and the education and what medication there is cause for there must be a firm conviction that the person argue that it is the worst sentence now we don't have the death penalty that one can impose and it should only be imposed in the worst of cases and fortunately courts have not given greater weight to a six factors that were presented to him about mitigation for mr jackson that he was employed that he had a family that he tried to educate yourself that he took care of his kids he had a criminal background almost all of the due to alcohol he problem with alcohol and treated in these seem like normal questions that defense counsel ask and what you're asking us to do is to presume if they want asked i don't think we can do but the facts became we ca of those matters because there were no defense counsel did not explore that with his client i understand and accept the fact that maybe this issue raised is really better post conviction petition however because said i am convinced that a natural sense of natural light is the only appropriate sentence having balanced all the factors then you would have no issue so that when you're imposing as you say the most serious sentence expresses some hesitation about doing it as i would expect most judges didn't the judge also say wait a minute so hold the presses this man has been abusive to her two times in the past and now this time and oh by the way he also murdered somebody so the judge very hard about very difficult decision to make and i think that's what the judge is expressing in his statement that it's a difficult decision to do but in under this case under these pics it was the be done with a firm or conflicts out so you would say that when the sentencing judge expresses any hesitation about closing the maximum sentence th court to find it when you are going to see a greater sense than the statute might allow that the defendant be given notice prior to trial that this is what he's looking at so that he can make intelligent choices about of the people with regard to the sense in sentencing issue the sentence was appropriate under either alternate alternate statutes because it was a felony murder since a murder was committed in the course of a home invasion or b s a fire firearm sentencing enhanced men which was from twenty five years to natural life the important point is that the sentence was in the  fail to show that it departed from the intent of the law or violated any constitutional guidelines there's a presumption in fact that a sentence is based on proper legal reasoning and here the judge made a very good record  the issue about his mental health just be clear on the actually was as a youth he was treated for several months for some kind of mental health disorder but he didn't take medication from then until he committed the crime when he was in his clinical services they found that he was fit for trial and he didn't even need need to take a second medications in order to retain stiffness so i'll talk a little bit more about mental health issue in a moment but  there's not much to rehabilitate here someone to alcohol was mentioned maybe he did some drinking in the past but he testified at trial that he was not drunk when this thing unfolded even though he'd been drinking earlier in the evening that was this testimony  the issue of remorse illness there's nothing nothing not much to say just as he had not much to say he didn't mention he never took responsibility for it he testified to trial he gave up convoluted story about being attacked by people who demonstrably were not that's not that doesn't outweigh the question of the seriousness of the offense and this one is just about as serious as it gets i'm mostly the the argument in the brief about excessive sentence saying this was not particularly cruel it was really rather offensive you're some man who was shot twice and they had so to say there's worse things that could happen i doubt his family feels that way and i doubt if he could speak he would feel that way  the maximum sentence in most instances and courts do distinguish the circumstances from case to case for example with if the victim was tortured prior to being murder or whether there was an extensive particularly heinous method of murder if if two shots to the head as serious as they but this was particularly bad this was somebody who invaded the house in the middle of the night and he shot an unarmed man and he went from there to attack other people in the house so it was most serious in fact the argument and the trial judge's expression of reluctance to impose this on well i would agree with what justice simon said that if anything it only proves that the judge really reasoned and took into consideration all the factors before it and that's important the judge didn't make a cut and dried decision he knew all about the rehabilitation and he made a considered decision and as the court pointed out earlier today the court expressed kind of dismay that this is a circumstance where sounds like they had to be imposed and said the court kept coming back to the fact that this was a horrific a night of war it depends condit was tenacious and ferocious and that it was important to protect the victim one of earlier or at the very threshold of the argument fails because we don't in fact know what the defense counsel did with regard to investigating the defendant's mental health in fact all the record shows is that now is counsel yes for continuance in the beginning of the case because he wanted to look into the issue of what the record calls dependence is a cold incapacity what exactly that is i don't know the record doesn't say but it certainly suggests that defense counsel to a good good look at the defendant and investigated where he thought it was appropriate so the argument fails at the outset for that very reason and there's nothing about the defendant in his history or in this conduct a trial that indicates he had mental health issues he was employed he was educated he had relationships there's no didn't indicate there was anything unusual about him during the course of defense counsel's representation this man testified at trial value of the evidence it was not presented and then this case it's no would otherwise apply defendant has a due process right to notice of what that fact would be in this case it's really very simple the question becomes if the defendant was charged with pulling the trigger of a fire argued this morning that well what about the fact that the state expressly included the enhancement as to the other two charges but not this it doesn't matter under which i was three that the better practice would be to include the sentencing and language and every else which the state and this is why it would be preferable but the important point in terms of this are this argument is that nonetheless the defendant has notice he doesn't have any right under the fifth amendment in the preparation of his defense here the defendant never indicated surprise with regard to the announcement he didn't file a motion to reconsider sentence he argued industry that well if i had known about the sentencing and spend i might have would have done differently what he would have said at a four fifty one she hearing how this testimony at a jury trial would have been different if it couldn't have ben different if he stuck with this self defense claim because in claiming self defense she admitted that he was are that he was armed with a firearm