responds well to treatment and that when he's stabilized he can be productive and responsible and finally nobody disputes that although the trial court found him guilty but mentally ill the judge did not favorably consider charles his mental illness sentencing charles to an extended term sentence of forty five years which is thirty nine years over the minimum and fifteen years over the maximum now a trial the evidence demonstrated that both experts basically agreed that charles committed this offense while he was suffering from an active mental illness resulting in a substantial behavior disorder with impaired judgment we also know that he repeatedly tried to kill himself around the time of the offense he also repeatedly charles months after he was already stabilized he could still acknowledge he still knew that charles had suffered his mental illness was acute at the time of the offense and based on all of this the trial court found charles guilty but mentally  well that's magical and then a little bit chagrined because we've got a guy with a serious charge here and wants mental health in his background and two days after trial he becomes brilliant now the trouble is comments show not only a confusion between mental illness and intelligence which we know can both co exist at one time but at the very least they also show the trial court's eagerness to distance itself from the mental illness as a significant factor in the offense  from the first court date he looked like he was almost comatose when he came back from chester mental health facility he still looked like a planned piece of and shortly after conviction was miraculously restored now all these comments are not well founded based on the evidence that we know came out at trial he looked comatose at the first trial date because he was unfit for a trial in fact he was floridly psychotic his memory loss was also real he didn't suddenly his memory didn't suddenly become restored after his conviction he still couldn't remember even at the time of sentencing and we know from both experts that this is very common with people who suffer from severe psychosis and in fact people with people without mental health issues can have memory problems if they go without sleep for several days as we know charles dispute and he does have a history in the trial court talked about needing to protect the public he talked about it in terms of the fact that charles never expressed any remorse for the commission of the it's a it's a true self defense thereby excusing you from any sort of liability or criminal culpability but they can consider the probably cation they consider the nature of the self defense claim it as medication for sentencing and here that's exactly what should have convicted and then all of a sudden he was magically restraint i mean really what we're talking about here is his behavior after he was convicted indicates one thing and that's the one thing that we're pushing here which is that he responds well to medications and that what  well not necessarily me we know that the stressors that he faced this time around were particularly acute he had a very ill make girlfriend who then gave birth to his daughter who is also very elderly believed required hospitalization he was unable to care for her other children she was unable to work all of these you know he was unable to afford his medications he was he was falling down a slippery slope to spite the fact if you try to try to get help in the past it hadn't been so bad and here you are all of a sudden a healthy participants in your posts trial issue is those are the comments that are particularly concerning and they rise to a level of abuse of discretion because it not only demonstrates an end willingness to consider his mental illness as a factor of mitigation but it's actually indicating that he's using the fact as charles has and stabilize against him which is not what we want to do in the past in the front as we want to fashion a sentence with respect to the both the state and the trial court promise that an extended terms and terms was off the table now it's a disgrace that this comes was made but i think a normal reading of this conversation that happened on the record shows that the defendant charles asked about the upper mandatory term we think the six to thirty which is associated with the class x felony which of course this home invasion was all we know that the state's attorney is more than capable of differentiating between a mandatory versus a permissive sen a ten minutes it was full of bizarre behavior such as charles asking and drinking a glass of water he asked for the phone then put it back in hannah's earth he then left the house an officer tore it up into pieces put his hands in prayer the judge who will the defendant he would not be sentenced beyond the maximum allowable sentence he never talked about two years of sentence said not for the maximum allowable lower tiers goes up all over he said that the state's attorney said  he would consider other crimes an innovation never told him he'd get no sentence beyond the quoting quote normal statutory sensing range just told you no sense to be on the maximum the defendant's claim is unavailing that of course there is no sentence that sentence beyond was no abuse of discretion here which is when you really look at it in the larger sense what the defendants claim all the factors of law are set out in my brief the appellate court presumes the judge considered mitigating factors the defend nonetheless be outweighed by the seriousness of the crime in the need to protect the public obviously need that public massive hear laughter for morse which was here can be considered prior drug use which was here is an egg beating factory essentially there was presenting a great teacher to many people again i made the point he said he was a concern of this post occurrence mental change he found the defendant to be manipulative and balls and so there is a need to deter what we have here your honour's is a perpetual or a grocery robber demonstrate or help to demonstrate the the later arbitrariness of the forty five year sentence when you look at that conversation and again we both agree that this is laid out and they believe pages five twenty two twenty four as the record  you were using words like normal sentencing range mandatory sentencing range not discretionary not optional the six to thirty is what a reasonable interpretation of the conversation lends itself to and against then jumped to a forty five also coupled with comments on charles's post trial change in quotes and although you know counsel points out that the judge also made a comment that he's not going to consider this change he clearly  his sentencing him makes several comments about what he perceives charles's change in his mental health to be on so all of for all of those reasons food asked again that this court either reduce his sentence to the