actions that he was armed with a gun weapon during the offense in this case there's no disputes that mr watson never heard of indicated that he had a gun so the only question is whether his act by his actions indicated that he did right hand was in his pockets cinch with the whole time actually her exact testimony was that it might have been this and this was always pretty much in this right pocket that's that's the exact test one the assistant manager who was about eight to ten feet behind the teller who was birch she did testified but again that has been his pocket with his hand was in the pocket but she didn't know it was in there other than his hands and that he did move forward but again it's not the rest when that happens you know when he was getting the money it's not clear what exactly was going on there but the the critical i think what distinguishes this case from other aggravated robbery cases that analyze this third prong of the statute regarding the gun is that there is some ambiguity regarding what's what mr watson was doing with his hand in his pocket  obviously that's that that causes some pause that he has his hand in his pocket and can't we can't deny that but but the cases where the courts have found that that third prong is satisfied it's much more clear that the takes regarding indicating that if he has a gun and there's there's a couple cases that that i cited the grief of the first people versus williams and that case the defendant actually pushed the victim's head onto the table and at the same time had his hand in his waists told the victim that he had just got out of prison he didn't want to go back in the you was going to was going to kill someone in there so that that that it's it's that it's crystal clear it is and i understand our our burden on appeal but but again i don't want to bring it back to the the ambiguity in this case this this isn't a case that this that falls but that's like people versus arm and but then she's pointing her finger at a victim again there that's it's it's clear as to what what the defendant is doing in our case there's more ambiguity about what exactly is going on there  cases where they've found either that they're wrong at the end he did they had a weapon or that were strong based on the possession of a gun and threats is that there's a connection between either some sort of verbal threats and then or move to the waist of pointing the finger with the the over the gun or there's you know i'm putting your head on the table and i just got out of jail and i don't want to go back and i'm going to shoot someone there it's threatened that he had never said he had a gun he never believed threatens to do anything he raised his voice when the teller wasn't and you know over the bigger bills and and and and slap his hand on the table and the fact that there is no there is no medicine gesture i mean if if mr watson had pointed his finger in his pockets and made some sort of motion or even just pointed the pocket at teller i don't think we would be here today that argument  obviously not nearly as kind of a list as the one we're making but based on the testimony his hands in there and it's not clear when but he goes up and you know as it's up here that's the money and then and then go watson shouldn't have should have received two years of imus are as opposed to three because he was convicted of aggravated robbery which is a class one felony and that carries a two year m s r term he wasn't convicted of a class x felony which carries a statute that involves the maximum aggregate consecutive term and yet you argue i got convicted of a class these are class two felonies therefore the maximum would be two fourteen year terms or twenty eight thirty years too much of the issue before the poll in court was whether do you look to the class of the underlying offense or do you look to the class us sentencing range so was the maximum one hundred twenty over the maximum twenty eight the court looked up at the the that what the m s r statute says is that that is that attracted it holds that there you look to the underlying offense there is no where nothing in either of the statutes that makes it clear and i think that's the problem i mean the legislature should make it clear either put it in the  there you know what i want what's the big bills initially when she started to move toward the alarm he said don't make any motions many look overdone supervising their buy ins and don't move so it was clearly implying a threat through his his words at that point don't make any motions don't make any moves goes to see if there was a weapon is eyes followed her eyes down she stated that his cock in his pocket was proof routing outward from the coat and he kept his right hand in his pocket at all times during this robbery those facts combined with the stuffing into his coat he could have grabbed that pull that right hand out and started scoop the money with their right hand also be kept it in the pocket at all times he's clearly trying to indicate that he's armed the people who know that the jury were given