as a reason for imposing an increased sentence in mr washington's case in other words the truck court imposed and aggregate life sentence in prison on mr washington and part of that cameras were present this others from the same conduct but if the need to deter others from the same kind that exists it exists whether the cameras are present at knox cameras are present or not so for the trial court to use the fact that the cameras were present was she's now reconsider yes now don't get me wrong the times is a proper aggravating factor but then you just can't sense has on average three reasons meaning they just can't just single him out because the cameras were present mr washington had no control over that you know the supreme court created the pilot program for cameras in the courtroom and the media companies can request to cover certain cases it's purely their decision which cases they want to cover the defendant has no control over that so mr washington had no control over whether or not the basing its decision on the need to deter and the need to deter that kind of exists and the court said why but in the instant case the judge just thank i usually don't use this factor but i use it today because the cameras are specific had nothing to do with his particular case and the facts or anything like that and judge is using the actions of the media company and requesting to cover the case and i mean that that's still that's still arbitrary your hono the supreme court's pilot program for cameras in the courtroom was esther's to do it to bring transparency to the court proceedings to bring accountability to allow the public to see it and i you know into what's going on in the court  system there is nothing in the language of a policy that shows they didn't have the cameras in the courtroom was as unsuited to act as a penalty or to be something that can be used against to defend it and had mr washington known that this would be used against him maybe he designed to become a penalty to the defendant specific the state's only argument is that deterrence becomes more relevant when the cameras are present but all of that is speculative because the jazz at the time of sentencing does not know that this event is going to be publicized just because the cameras are present that doesn't mean anything i mean the media company could turn around the next day and decide hey we want to cover this you know a breaking story that just came out we're not even going to put this in the paper we're going to be you know this story gets bumped for something out and those are the makes the apple cation of a proper fact or improper because it's arbitrary so this just highlights why considering the media presence in the courtroom is a completely arbitrary application  your honest timothy washington was subject to a firearm enhanced net twenty five years in national life in prison for the personal discharge of a weapon that approximately cost the victim's death this sentencing range is unconstitutional because it provides the trier of fact with no factors no criteria no balance whatsoever to help the judge determine where within that rot range a proper sentence should lie for this particular defendant  and under this provision the judge has unfettered discretion to in polls as an enhancement a sentence about life in prison and the the maximum on the base for murder a sixteen but the judge with this fire indefinite that persons of common intelligence must necessarily guess at its meaning and differ as to its application and that's what we have here with with the statute is the range is so broad and there are no doubt one of the so the judge consider this is this and this when it comes to the firearm hasnat there are no criteria there are no guidelines at all so we don't know what the judge found that warranted a sentence of life one just maximo but without knowing what factors are what lines and judges able to consider mr washington doesn't have a meaningful way to point to anything that was improper or anything that the  the court is able to impose a maximum penalty in the state of illinois and you certainly would not tolerate this in the death penalty context and this implicates some of the same concerns this being the highest penalty now in illinois you know there needs to be some guidelines you know the death penalty there are certain aggravating factors mitigating factors and the just those types of thank god of the texas discretion in determining when this life the sentence for from twenty five years to life there is nothing there are no factors and if the jets were to guidelines and having categories the penalty is zero because if and when that lends itself to totally arbitrary sentencing on the part of the trial court one of the things that jumps to mind is that you can have exactly the same crime with all of the same attendant circumstances and under this fire fieldsman a trial court could decide because one of the defendants is white and black i'm going to give a higher sentence to the one rather than the other whichever way you go it leaves the situation wide open for totally be applied uniformly across the board how do we know what one just thinks is not going to be you know the same as what another test things that's why we meet the guidelines that's that's exactly why the statute is they because it is leading the trial court to guess to come up with his own idea of what as to issue number two the deterrence factor imposing sentence that is a statutory sentencing factor turns urges allowed to use in there was discussion from the state's attorney about the fact that the parents were in the court room under the supreme court's program if you line perhaps that's where it belongs but that's why they were there the press asked to be there under their program and they were there the trial judge didn't inform the state's attorney didn't control that any more than the sentences are being meted out there's always discussion about it you know we'll find you a mystery you know they're imposing sentences for this that or some certain judge sentences more harshly than others but there's no question in this case that if there are cameras in the court room in the process covering this case that the idea that the sentence might deter someone else from going out and shooting another seventeen year old young man in the street attempting to kill another carrying around weapons is a felony that is a problem on the streets and he in peoria and joliet and any siz over the state we can have as a matter of routine that will be getting greatly and he had sentences no you might but you might expect that the sentences that are handed out  a more deterrent effect than they do with this point and that's a proper sentencing factor that wasn't you know my son's impactor i mean it's this defendant is a convicted but my question was once we see that the expansion of cameras in the courtroom are we going to see is a man a routine greatly and he settles in there but you know what you might see a greater deterrent and as to issue one the constitutionality of the statute i think there are two cases i cited in my brief from the first district where they can feel that the statute does not unconstitutionally say underneath the enhanced what sentence he imposes within that range of sentences is within his discretion just as any sentence within the sentencing range provided by statute would be if i recall correctly decide what sentence within this region going to mean they have not argued that this sentence was an abuse of discretion and justice smith is right if you think that this is an abuse of discretion  that you get the statute is not constitutional and if you have a problem for whatever sentence the judge imposed within the their argument which result given all the same time for a life sentence because of his criminal history and seriousness and there's no way i guess you could do it that think you just a few things on the cameras in a courtroom issue counsel mentioned that the trial trial for it didn't control whether the cameras were there the defendant in control that nobody controlled it but it is the judge's discretion that the trial judge's discretion whether or not to grant or deny the media's request for coverage of the case so while defendant could object to it ultimately it's the trial judge decision whether or not to allow the cameras there and mr mr washington does not object to having the cameras present that wasn't the problem the problem with this is the judge using the fact that the cameras are there to enhance his sentence i mean that's the act that's the arbitrary application of the deterrence factor which is something that mr washington could not have anticipated regarding and also i just want to reiterate that the this standard is because counsel mentioned that the cameras wasn't hearing is necessary and that's what we have in this case we can say that it was so insignificant that it did not affect the sentencing of the judge stated on the record that that was one of the reasons why moving wants to  there says that be injuries that are numerated and the firearm add on ranging from great bodily harm to death that those injuries can be used as guidelines and fashioning a sentence within the range  but if we use the logic of butler and b range of injuries as opposed to determine a range of sentences then by virtue of defendant that discharge a firearm that causes death that should where within the range the adolescent friendship fall they all should have gotten life which just shows how how how important is to have these guidelines because this is left completely open for the court to determine  also i want to mention that those those injuries that he that our courts say can be used as guidelines those are just the triggering factors that trigger the the same factor cannot be used twice so if the judge is considering that that sank back there then that that violates the double enhancement rule and nowhere and the statute itself and the add on statute has the le