state originally asked for the statute specifically says it had and there are other areas in that statute that did not want to put it out but actually wanted to raise the range of their sentence and the different language and he doesn't know which factors the judge fuse for each one you can fuck that well maybe the judge because this was a serious crime that was a terrible injury victim maybe the court gave him thirty years sentence than the twenty five just the twenty five years yet doesn't seem quite fair way to go out it doesn't seem to relate in any meaningful way so the legislature case compels this court to increase the sentence after this court has made its determination does this court has no discretion and considering the evidence from the case and independently arriving in a sense mandated by the legislature later with minimum and maximum merely directly increasing the original sensing range makes no substantive difference so it's the way that the court is triggering the add on it's saying now it's not an add on to some sense that the court has already imposed instead increases the sentencing range so it's different here in that it's not a set term of years as it was bill but that's a distinction without a difference it's twenty five to natural life that means that increases the underlying  supposed to be the truth so that they may reasonably their constitution would be may reasonably be upheld we've got the supreme court's decision we've got the supreme court's decision morgan saying that the statute increases the sentencing range the trial court did not bifurcated sentencing decision the trial court talked at length about the sensing factors that applied and said i'm going to post seventy five years and again this is i've been calling this from the record but of course we're talking about the constitutionality  supreme court held the statute requires or that it merely faeces the range instead of six to thirty it's thirty one to natural life and the court talked about the factors in of course mitigating factors in imposing sense within an extended and expanded range om and it also has clearly held ensure that he has recently designed a room in the the particular and of course why would the legislature it does use the and on language that the supreme court has said well despite that it really creates a range and the fact that you know obviously it could have simply directly increased and that language is in him this at the regional fundamental difficulty if the if the legislature says that they want to have an adult one answer that's clearly expressed that's fine we don't have that problem here and it's not more fundamentally it's not well the statute only allows a possibility of natural life if the defendant personally discharges the firm has agreed so the statute says that's what the sentence is and legislatures and better position to determine sentencing  he specifically says this is an add on the sets this opus oh so we have to have a sense of toast first before we have the ad i think that the only we're way to decipher that language is to say that you do what then is required after seeking leave this court to do so or the rule will tell you what you need secretly to do i think and we will hold the