improper sentencing like the type we're already in this case where something went wrong in the process of sentencing and improper factors relied on the court appoints that type of argument with a general argument excessive s is just too long regardless of what happened and i think that's a flock place and i don't think those are the same thing that's that's problematic to say those are those are always the same thing because it ignores what we're talking about  that's a violation of the center only proc statutory factors of course it's always better for him if at the trial level the trial court doesn't motion sensing say you know this was not right but that's appealing now the defendant position is that the motion to reconsider sentence provisions of rule six zero four d applied to him even though he had a negotiated plea of guilty and in doing so he relies on this state has cited other cases like first district done and the district richard and even the more recent case in the third district rademacher and then would have to then file a p l a to the only supreme court urging the the reason why this state did not first work which are on the reason that the defendant failed to include this issue in a motion to reconsider sentence is for the simple reason that under dunn and richard and evans the interpretations of i understand your honor of the other thing is if this court does rule in an accord with palmer smith and then this court could also simply find that under its other precedence limiting the scope plainer review that this decision would be affirmed and the state would not having the ability to take this up on appeal late so it seems like a tactical decision that given how obvious  is a matter of policy leaving aside the technical aspects of the rule for a moment my efforts at rehab but he's also whack at me because of these two factors that everybody's told me or my life or told me or now i figured out or impro economy that motivated this sort of rule that the court should be allowed to reconsider poker should be allowed to review the sentence but that's a country policy then that's when it doesn't fit with the scheme because when the only supreme court in acted to call a very rule which is  an anomaly in the sense that there are there are permitting or requiring defendants found motions when the supreme court made a judgment that the defendants shouldn't be told that they should be able to file it because in their policy judgment they cannot file well sentence is really a complaint about what you've got i e you can be too long so there is absolutely nothing unless it would be a violation of due process the family could say given the judge judge fair because he did i don't even want to talk about the amount that he gave me i want to talk about how he arrived at ten souse well i so i still i still wanted to answer finish my answer just a statement question hopefully answers as the sentence that's imposed within the half the defendant i mean this is sort of like the overriding agreement that that when it takes up the cap of their teen years and they get a lead then they've already read that they're not going to challenge that unless they withdrawn that's the overriding agreement here and so if it sort of encompasses a different agreement that that sort of discretion is going to be exercised lawfully or reasonably essentially that it doesn't really the overriding agreement that the the and under the policy expressed in sixty four d is explicitly plain in evidence and even if there evans didn't even say that and it was just simply a matter of well let's quote excessive well that's generally good policy except maybe where the record explicitly shows the crowd should consider something that is not appropriate to be considered and might my final answer would that's not quite right it's not part of the deal it's not part of the terms of the deal the trial judge can do whatever he wants the sentencing it's assuming within the deal that sentencing is going to follow the proper procedure