committed witness intimidation believe the selling firearms in three separate deaths now instead of going into too much of the details i'm going to say some of the things that the state used to describe incidents that the state talked about today the trucker also mentioned testimony from the state of incidents you were certainly involved in so again best testimony regarding these incidents that were improper considering this i'm not considering this i'm considering that so we don't know but i think it's clear that the fear is considering all these incidents a history as a cumulative effect and it decent proper factors would go into required to sentence the defendant to the minimum sentence just because she finds that they have actors and mitigation basically that use of discretion standard which we're dealing with is the most deferential trial to the trial courts because we want trial judges that to have access to all the information about the defendants the best they can fashion a sentence that will take into account society and also what works best for restoring the offender to useful citizenship so sentencing hearing and also in the initial brief the defense counsel did not raise the clean air or argument so it's interesting he's doing it now but despite the facts what we're looking at are the presumptions in of the defendant's actions between trial and sentencing which in this case was very lightning and he actually was allowed to be on home monitor during that time period instead of being detained even though it was a classic sony to get treatment presumably for his crohn's disease which was one of his factors in geisha and and also his drug addiction he cut off his ankle monitor was using k two admitted to using k two and that time had to dilute sample which is presumed to be a positive and it took off and they had to find him and then he was brought back and he was actually charged and pleaded guilty to escape for the act so that was in the interim between trial and sentencing so she can can probably consider that because she's heard the trial testimony she was present on all the hearings between then that time in the sentencing he provided statement in question and in which he said that he basically committed all of his crimes because he was addicted to drugs his addiction made him do it and he is sorry for the victim but he's made the victim blamed him for i hung out with made me do it all back he his grandmother gave a statement basically along the same lines as he needs help and it's not fair that he got to hire charged and people that actually went in and did these crimes and also the hearsay testimony that the state provided which is allowable in a sentencing hearing and it's the judge's discretion whether she gets to allow it in is it reliable is it corroborated and what to do that the state said in their brief that could be tenuous the stolen gun from his grandfather into posting of course those are just part and parcel of what the officers testified to being the first investigator testified that there was a theft on the line i drive and there was a handgun and jewelry taken the defendant then took the jewelry to a pawn s martha where the defendants girlfriend who happens to be the same person that he was accused of intimidating the girlfriend went into the wal mart took me to games and some other we  controllers and then the defendant took those two game stop in man to man and so those and she her statements made to officers corroborated the evidence about that fact from the gun i felt from wal mart and no one would accuse the defendant of stealing it's more of his after the fact taking these items and pointing them there was a stolen here that he admitted to selling online  basis for the heroin charge that he did have and his p s i a in this criminal history and then the two other issues with the witness intimidation the stolen gun so all of those taken into consideration of the parts that are corroborate sentencing and just to constantly mean i've been victim of everyone else for what he did and not not taking into account or not saying it was my fault and i need to change and the judge stated that a lot of  inability to show remorse was about factored into it and she sentenced him to fifteen years which is right in the middle so the state believes that there was no abuse of discretion and that the ruling with a fifteen year sentence