find that mr taylor stipulated bench trial was tantamount to a guilty plea and under the illinois supreme court case people vs fourteen i stipulated bench trial is tantamount to a guilty plea if either the defendant stipulates to the sufficiency of the evidence or the defendant does not preserve the defense and in this case all mr taylor did preserve an issue for his appeal he also as it related to the sufficiency of the evidence specifically in the record the court asked if it agrees if he agreed that the state could prove beyond a reasonable doubt those facts necessary to the elements of the offense and defense counsel and mr taylor agreed to that stipulation so they stipulated not just to the evidence the seat would present but to the actual legal conclusion if that evidence was sufficient to establish the elements of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt so i want to stipulate a bench trial is tantamount to a guilty plea in the supreme court rules pertaining to guilty pleas apply in here the court did mohnish mr taylor before the stipulation pursuant to rule for of t case would be necessary and specifically the court admonish mr taylor more akin to rule six zero five eight which is appropriate following a traditional trial but under six o five b he also that he had the rates if i own a written motion to withdraw the plea or stipulation in this case and within thirty days and that any issue that he didn't raise in such a motion would be waived this court has two published decisions that address this type of scenario and twenty ten in thompson the parties all agreed that remand for proper in monish hands under six o five b was required in the sabers case in that case it a different procedural situation where the defendant had had a stipulated bench trial had reserved one issue a motion to suppress and sought to appeal that and the state argued this court did not have jurisdiction because the defendant had not filed a six o four d motion and in that case we agree with that outcome this court found that that was not a condition precedent to be appealed because that had been preserved through the mechanism of the stipulated bench but in but it is in this case it's a little different because if mr taylor had been seeking only to appeal his motion to suppress issue he could have proceeded based on those cour however he also had the right to follow six o four d and withdraw that stipulation within thirty days and he was never made aware of that and so he shouldn't been admonished consistent with rule six zero five b as to that not agree we would ask this court to consider the excessiveness of mr taylor's nine year sentence he was convicted of unlawful use of a weapon by a felon a class three offense subject to ten years and he got a nine year sentence which is almost the most serious sentence you can get even though the court found there was no harm cause nobody even realized that he had a gun until he was placed into custody he kept it in his pocket he never brand he never made any indication that he intended to try to access it or use it in the courts this is the plea found it played no role in his encounter with the police and it you know their cause nor threaten serious physical harm the stat relies on mr taylor's background to argue that such a severe sentence was warranted but it's important to look specifically at these offenses he had to class four hours one class three and the class three forgery was the offen underlying his you don't you conviction so it was already factored into exposing him to this three to ten year sentence and none of these offenses were violent while the trial court said it would make that ninety percent guess that his showing of remorse at sentencing was not sincere and he did make a very expensive showing of remorse and indicate his desire to turn his life around and his dedication to his family and so  stated there are two ways in which the plea bench trial can be found to be guilty plea the first if there's no defense presented or preserved and the second is the issue in this case whether or not trial counsel for the defendant actually stipulated that the state could prove all of the elements and material facts beyond a reasonable doubt and in this case it all really is going to boil down to the interaction between a trial court and a defense counsel during the statement the trial court stated so defense counsel from discovery provided to you in your own investigation doesn't appear that the state beyond a reasonable doubt those facts necessary to the elements of the offense trial counsel for the defen responded yes your honor with respect to the gun charge yes now we need to show the court how these words matter and the specific statements are important that were made by each party in order for a guilty plea to be voluntary it has to admit to both all the allegations that are contained in there in majority or in the stipulation of facts in this case and it also has to admit that all the elements can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt the statement does not admit both of those th that those facts that are necessary to the elements can be proven which in essence is what the whole point of stipulate a bench trial is the state is presented the stipulated facts they were read to the court and after that reading to the court defense counsel said yes those facts can be proven but just because those facts can be proven does not necessarily entail that it's an automatic guilty verdict the trial court still has to make that decision and the state essentially still has their burden to show proof beyond a reasonable doubt and i think it's important in this case that we that we look at those words you know does it appear that the state this is very different than the case in florida and the case also in in winter you know in case there were chance to be a bench trials the second of which was found to be inferring that many of the troubles words and end of the trial counsel's words we were present we're not one hundred percent aware of what the context of those statements are as far as what's going on in those individuals heads now we do know that prior to the judge asking this question the judge himself impeded that the parties were going to plead guilty but it's not the trial court's words that matter it's only their words that matter in the context of defendant's response and so even though the trap would indicated that there was going to be a guilty ple offense when he committed the instant crime the trial court also found the defendant only worked approximately two years out of the last fifteen and that defendant did not adequately support his children his trial for allegation was something like eleven the people noted that defense counsel was involved in a struggle with police he was tase it was possibly unlikely that he could even reach for the weapon but the trial court did find that to be a mitigating factor  point with respect to whether this simulated bench trial was tantamount to a guilty plea the state of knowledge is that they are making a slim distinction and our position is that they are not making the correct was do you agree the state could present this evidence the evidence they describe and yes you do you believe the state could present evidence that establishes the elements beyond a reasonable doubt it's a distinction between simulating some facts and stipulating to illegal conclusion that the defense in this case stipulated to the legal conclusion that the evidence could establish the necessary facts you know under reasonable doubt their word sufficiency was not used but it's not necessary because proof beyond a reasonable doubt is the legal standard with respect to the sentencing we disagree with this issue is not reserved a motion to reconsider the sentence was was filed in arguing and we just asked to support to the extent that any part of our argument was not specifically included in that motion that this court  still consider the issue but our position is that a nine year sentence even in light of the circulators background so close to the maximum of ten years for something that caused no harm he was you know standing there visiting a friend in a dangerous neighborhood a dangerous apartment complex and he had a gun in his pocket the trial court didn't make any findings about the canada that should allow that same increase the sentence  but if not then please consider reducing mr taylor's sentence thank you