such that court relied on evidence not admitted and evidence that should not have been considered the trial court stated in its order they are testified that sometime in two thousand and twelve the defendant however they are never testified to such a map and the charging instrument never charged such an act this was a written opinion a very important document finding defended guilty in addition there was a motion to reconsider sentence in this matter therefore the trial judge was required to review the evidence to rereview rule and in doing so he can only assume we're arguing that a contrary finding this clearly evident that the trial judge's findings are against the manifest weight of the evidence they are testifying and she did so falls to one of the most basic i understand that this work wants to focus on the legal issues and not the facts of the case but i would be remiss if i did not go through those inabilities she was unable to say where the other five members of the household were located five minutes she couldn't tell us when this happened and back she could even testify as to what here that she answered i don't know thirty four times with the cross now going through those transcripts she couldn't provide those important and necessary details and that's also the plaintiff's testimony quite a ours was happy we unbelievable and we're here attacking that credibility just as they did in that case and the evidence and considering the sufficiency of the evidence it must include not just the evidence that's in favor of the state all of the evidence and we also submit our found and stated this in its written opinion that if she made it up or money had her children help life she would have taken the entire sixty further state that she only took about one third of the money if and under the courts the only reason i mean that condition certainly does not yield the result it's in  in addition miss my sphere they are support teachers testify that they are told her that she was moving to pontiac about a week before she stopped coming to school which that occurred in february immediately before these allegations arose there that this is beyond a reasonable doubt we argue that beef since imposes excessive and we're asking this court to reduce mr wood sentence worry man this case factor appearing written opinion the court said that it cuts both ways when she thinks about that the court stated you did not have the type of upgrade soon that we would want any of  children to have to go through but somehow managed to really become a productive member and contribute member of society but that's scary because i found you guilty further stated so you know that kind of cuts both ways unfortunately our legislature has made it clear that it cuts one way but it is a mitigating factor only and that that mitigating factors must be considered and here by the courts only three citation was very dependent on credibility which was dr the ruling was derived in large part based on the judge's observation of the witnesses demeanor and therefore this is the type of case which other's allegations and that provides strong congregation for both of their stories and the question of whether the photograph with ok are in it it's not obvious in the record that they are understood the question as referring to whether she recognised herself in the photo that may have been the defense attorney's attempts to elicit that fact and she readily admitted that once the defense attorney asked her whether she was in the photograph so it's not something that to fact pass to infer that she was somehow a dishonest witness because she never she did not immediately say that she was in the photograph and also it's not something that requires his fish out appeal this court  to find that her testimony and as with regard to the sex abuse was untruthful because this is something about whether she testified truthfully with regard to whether she was in a photograph for example that's not involving record occurred i don't know if he said i don't really understand the claim of the misstatement so i can't really say that i agree with it i don't i don't myself i have not noticed any  misstatements in the judge's ruling based on the transcript but even if there were eating the statements it would not have the defendant do due process for there to be a misstatement in the judge's ruling at a bench trial unless it was crucial  understanding so it may possibly made a difference and here is the judge's very clear that the ruling is based on the credibility of the witnesses based on their demeanor and was very specific as to how they testified and why the judge thought they were credible and so case very much reflected in the sentence the ten year sentence out of her range of six to sixty is very lenient for this sort of crime which is an extremely serious crime a predatory criminal sexual assault of a child what do you make  cuts both ways i think it was directed a little bit at the idea of the defense upbringing and i'm not sure she was being penalize for it the type of upbringing he had i'm sure that that is something that was being kind only i think it was just merely an observation in passing that wasn't actually taken into account in these times on the court is entitle to make remarks in passing in a sentence commenting on the defend this background for example and i'm sure that this is an obvious i'm not i don't think this is not a situation where the judges penalize sing the defendant for what should be a mitigating factor i'm not sure that's like the h type case where the the the defendant had like a mental disability or developmental disability and that was taken in the aggravation for example when the statute part due to the medication and not sure this is sort of a similar situation where the the remark is i think he was given credit for his backgrounds and that is reflected in the sentence the other mitigation if it refers to whether he was likely committed other crime i think it's a very he told the mother after he was sort of caught for abusing any art that he wouldn't do it again and then he did that shows a little bit about his ability to avoid sex abuse of children and that's a very telling factor that could be considered by the judge and the defendant did have a i think there's a physical abuse history and that pretty sense investigation report the allegation that this is somehow at that tends to excuse or justify the the sexual side of the child that this is something the judge has to find the judge has discretion to decide that that mid century mitigating factor does not apply that the physical abuse of the offender and history in their background to snog tends to excuse or justify the sex abuse of the child and that's something that was not required to be given any weight at all because that that mitigating factor was not clearly political  mitigating factor of living a law abiding life no prior criminal history it counsel states that those remarks are just that the judge took it upon herself to state those things it certainly was to set her the judge and a defendant's lack of criminal history and not cut both ways it's clear by our legislature that it is a mitigating factor and i stand upon my breathing and pass this forward for the relief as we've outlined so thank you thank