i'd like to address both those in turn with respect to the first claim specifically mr munder alleged that the circuit court considered improperly the sum of the injuries that were sustained by me and are  the eighteen inches of power that she had rheumatic and the permit risk of balance for obstruction that you know as your owners are aware the right to liberty and freedom from  restraint are fundamental constitutional rights that are enshrined in both the only constitution and the united states house and our poll a court has held that want to circuit court considers an improper aggravating factor it unjustly affects that liberty interest and that's where mr munro's claim stems from at sentencing dr dimaio testified at length about amanda r s injuries including the section of bowel that was removed during surgery and her risk of obstruction but she never testified as to the cause of that injury there was no medical opinion as to what caused that injury and nevertheless at sentencing the state explicitly argued that bow and jury as aggravating factor as as  stated aggravating factor number one and that's it page one seventeen on the record and the circuit court and its finding the second and third sentences it said were i can agree with all of the factors in aggravation and mitigation that were pointed out by both sides they are all appropriate so the circuit court accepted the state's argument that these injuries were an aggravating factor they were serious harm that mr amano a cop and the problem with said the circuit court was engaging in the classic logical fallacy of post hoc ergo propter hoc after it therefore because of the circuit court was assuming causation when there wasn't any doing can't which are both and mr myers brief stand for at the circuit court cannot consider harm suffered by the victim if there is no causal evidence to related to the defendant and at bottom what we're talking about is has mr munroe stated the gist of a claim is there a claim here that's arguable on its merits and the answer i would suggest here is a yes he stated a constitutional claim as a constitutional dimension and as our supreme court has said over and over again question is is it frivolous and without merit is it an industry dibley meritless legal theory or are the factual allegations fanciful or delusion and in this case the answer to both is no this is a beagle theory as well recognized as his liberty interest and the allegation that the circuit court considered this factor consider this evidence when there wasn't because alit ever presented isn't fanciful or delusional excuses so i would suggest on that basis alone this court should reverse an remained or second stage of proceedings and the point of counsel but in addition to that that's relevant because by mr mungo's own admission the his conduct took place at the morning of february twenty eighth two thousand and ten and amanda our's vomiting began only several hours later so establish the full breadth of strictly he only has to establish as our supreme court and it said that counsel was arguably on reasonable and counsel and that this is arguably prejudice and with respect to that it wasn't reasonable because this evidence either the report or mr khan is testimony would have undermined this finding circuit court said yes i agree with this aggravating factor it's appropriate and mr monroe was prejudiced because he received a sense of eleven years which encompassed all the aggravating factors  everybody in fact so it would be a logical to say his sentence would have been the same without this serious harm aggravating factor that's to say it would be meaningless and respect that doesn't make sense so just like his first claim mr monroe has established an arguable constitutional violation that's all he has to do it the stage he set out a legal claim it's arguable on its merits that's all the supreme court require today the last trading liver aspect of a certain kind of drifted off a little bit so it kind of bring back their aspect of the argument first of all though it might be helpful to look at the historical basis of this guilty plea when the parties a kind of expand out the time frame in which the the twelve the forty eight hours that the nurse refers to and you'll note that at the beginning of the case when they're having this trip back and forth about what the defense was pleading guilty to the defense counsel was also pm and so you know there was the defendant's statements in the interrogation which indicated that it all happened same day the defense counsel was making it pretty clear from his strategic standpoint from his part from his actual standpoint it's not really what happened it was actually the next day so that sort of procedure sort of a thought process of defense comes as part of this is the time frame for us if that's true then this these injuries if it does take a twelve hour lag time or more for the great bodily harm element of the offense it was to they stipulated to it during the plea but the abdominal injury is separate and the state still specifically argued that during sentencing they said as it says i agree that all these factors are appropriate and yes later on the supreme court says i'm not going to consider evidence of what i didn't hear might be bruises in the hair falling out but it never disavows the fact that it says it three years with this aggravating factor these specific about and i realize it's a can of construction but i think it's a useful metaphor and i'm probably a butcher it but there is a or when the circuit court says i'm not going to consider bruises and hair falling it's listing the splash of things that it's not going to consider and we can assume that when it doesn't list the bow injury in that class of things that it was considering because it said i accept your argument that's appropriate i agree with it and it never later on says i'm not going to consider so respectfully i mean that is the issue here is the circuit court considered  best what we're talking about is the record is unclear from the state's perspective at best it's unclear circuit court says i agree with this it's appropriate and for mr daly's perspective the this statement of i'm not going to consider the bruises and the hair falling out somehow disavows that reliance on this aggravating factor at best this is unfair and certainly not affirmatively rebutting mr munro's point and that's the stage where it is the record affirmatively rebutting this claim the answer is no and that means he gets to go on to the second stage just in terms of mr munder a sentence eleven i would disagree with it it's still a lead in years that's almost double the minimum and just in terms of general sentencing concepts i think it's well established that when the legislature establishes a minimum for an offen they say that's an acceptable amount of punishment for this offense so he still got almost doubled which is still a good amount of time i also want to clarify he the report that was generated by m her report says the onset of pain and tenderness could be x expected twelve to twenty four hours after vomiting just twenty four to forty eight so even with mr daly's interpretation that well defense counsel said the symptoms in the start until the next day which as far as i'm concerned how the defense counsel represents i should say misunderstands the evidence really doesn't matter mr mo so consistent with her report we're still looking at twenty four to forty eight hours earlier for the injury that is causing this vomiting now mr daly seems to suggest that a lot of this was trial strategy this wasn't used third stage but all were interested at the first stage is was this arguably an effective and trial strategy gets determined later on and finally i would just there's a magnificent one i would just urge others to look at the the bare bones claim that mr monroe makes with respect to the aggravating factor there in have evidence for was the statutory aggravating factor and we lawyers might call that relying on improper aggravating factor and mr monroe should be punished because he didn't know how to articulate that in a way that