if there is such a case for versatile it is here i've looked over the cases cited both by in our briefs and in the state's briefs and in fact the appellate court has reduced sentences even where there's been a what absolutely there is no question about it that this was our families and i will not by any means or in any manner shape or form seek to justify or one step years whether this sentence is excessive so on one hand there is the horrible circumstances of the car in every respect to the fact of the planning a home invasion  injuries to the victims and so on but as i was gus in a moment you have to look at the whole context where people were involved you have to look at who is responsible for what and who without any sort of you know and considerable support so if we were just talking about the crime and whether what was appropriate for the crime i was really just it's got our will fine and punishment should be assessed but as you know the only constitution and the statutes provide that rehabilitation is supposed to be taken into account as a here we have a defendant who is twenty one years old at the time he presents a substantial life history of lewd conduct would sedition sheff up until his teen years when his parents divorced education abbott's age information commit crimes and the stimuli which motivate his conduct now he was quite clear and we've put in some evidence of this and tried to put in more evidence but were offended by some of the trial  before which had a pattern substantially similar to the charge that the pattern being that chad pierce and the some sort of imagined criminal genius at least in his own mind would plan the smith was a late addition this crew and you took a number of mines for chad persuade him to go along with it and as your smith said that and he was also quite proud which again i think is unique and different in that you didn't say it was my terrible childhood i was crazy he said it was greed plus the influence of chad which motivated this so he just dr jekyll set a conservative insight into his own behavior to what you'd done why he had done it and that's just me a potential rehabilitation and change so there was stachel mitigation and it was our view and our argument that the trial judge's sentence and eighty percent sentence only close to the maximum without taking into account although she gave this mitigation yes excessive you know in our constitution and given our stature now your smith showed genuine remorse however when we attempted to introduce the background to visually and one of the background of it was that he  comparison with those other subjects now a state objection to this testimony what sustain it's the state's position here i believe that the reason for the exclusion was that dr jekyll was attempting to compare sentences in different criminal cases which under people versus being u is how i assess somebody spread ability in terms of remorse i compare it to things i've heard or seen in other people and he should have been permitted to so testify now the trial judge  emotion during his testimony and that's basically all that she sat she didn't say that ms line she just said you didn't show emotion yet in wrong because it's wrong to take things from other people so he had insight into why what he did was wrong i think his insight is a reflection of the fact that he did have some stability and growing i think he did not he did not himself explain that except that i believe the evidence was that guns were used in the fire incidents in other words there was evidence which was introduced both through the cross again righteously attempting to defend himself his wife and his property not it is our position that it doesn't matter and it matters for example raised one is just common sense i mean obviously under the rules of accountability people are guilty of crimes even do it and the rule of law like years just because you use the division of labor and split arms into different parts doesn't mean that you get away with anything that's what accountability means but when it comes to sentencing it is certainly appropriate to determine who is the regional leader who is the main actor and who is the one gather together one great driver there is some distinction between different roles that people play and different and we could have shown where events actually let us was that this was a very stereotyped type operation chad probably not personally violent maybe couldn't even hit somebody in self i've described  correct there's no dispute about that that he was there present during the threat there is fused whether he was the person threatening he was taken down information that's correct and that's the the evidence is mistress of that and you could play that was the trackwork for me to take into account the fact that there was a single charge and a plea agreement which in effect substantially reduced not of time that the defendant might have been facing and the state been unwilling to you don't believe so i think that that's the point of plea negotiations if one lives and there actually is case law in terms of what it does to defend it for example if he did enter into whatever reason to avoid a trial or whatever but they said ok why plea yet up to thirty you have to stipulate to bodily harm so that's a five percent of whatever you get and then will drop the charges no i don't think it is appropriate for a trial judge to say ok he's got a break he should get near the maximum because after all i've gone to trial i could have given him a know you could have gone to trial and you got to trial i could be you could be looking at sixty seventy years you're going to get a break you know go to trial not the break you got to not going to trial was based on an agreement between him and the for that and in exchange for the willingness of the defendant plead guilty we have agreed to drop certain other charges which carry ishall penalties in the defendant here today will plea simply to one  stands within the statutory range whatever the range is not the statutory range that could have been had the prosecutor done something else and if the statutory every day says that as long as it's within the statutory range  honor brings up but our answer is clear totally inappropriate to think in sitter over a range could have been higher and the prosecutor not exercised mercy on their own or let you know the exercise the one of the because that's what they want own it can only make the decision with the cooperation of corroboration of the defense oh absolutely and i think the parking is this is going to be the maximum this is going to be the minimum you can get anywhere between the maximum minimum eighty five percent it doesn't mean just because we entered into spark in your or you're going to get in your maximum because after all we could have treated you worse i mean it's an agreement but once the agreement show the specific factual evidence that could be or might have led to trial and other charges i mean this debate the basic facts  agreed to other than levels of participation in perhaps who is who show the complicity of all four individuals for a series of offense for which there would be accountability hearing we believe you are entitled to argue for the minimum state believe they were entitled to argue to the maximum and argument is something so close the maximum is so far from the minimum is under these facts given as your smith court as has already been set out in my brief and mention today it was an egregious offense and the details are and the facts in the record are significant outlining just how horrible  most of defendants arguments today strike me as being a question of wanting to argue whether there was whether this defendant should be responsible for the great bodily harm that was inflicted on both of them the reality is his relative role in him in causing that injury was somewhat removed from being relevant at sentencing by a stipulation that he willingly made that he or those who he was responsible for caused great bodily harm to both of those victims if defendant as you said defendant did take a bargain and in that bargain obviously he was hoping that the trial court would find closer to the minimum but the reality is he got in the sentencing range this is not excessive he had this stipulation that he is now trying to come back and challenge he didn't move to withdraw his guilty plea which he could have and he could have gone to trial to attack and further put out his points of evidence on what role did play or didn't play i'm sure this was a weighing of costs and benefits but this was the bargain he made to now come back and have multiple issues that all come back to simply attack his role is not relevant as the trial court found at a sentencing hearing in terms a teen once they reach the age of accountability and even dr jekyll testified that divorce and family difficulties would have played one role in defendant's criminal activities but it in no way was the main or over sha an unrelated case as to that's the doctor's opinion that he was remorseful has inherent and that's the basis for that opinion is his experience with other people he has interviewed defendants and patients so in reality that is already built into the opinion that based on his experience with other patients other defendants he can make that professional expert opinion that this defendant there was as i recall also no specific testimony as to why guns were a product to sell anything beyond that is speculation i do not call it any point during this if there was an explanation as to th open and said this isn't going to happen back and the factual basis for the flea treatment also included evidence of these other charges that were dropped for the trial court to make a proper sentence it wasn't mild and they did