kind mr cook's guilty plea hearing he was convicted of two counts of child pornography and he was convicted of thirty he was convicted of those counts and originally sentenced to thirty six months probation he was not in monis mandatory consecutive sentences at his sentencing hearing instead he was only told he was eligible for a sentence between three and seven years imprisonment thereafter mr cook his probation was revoked and the circuit court sentence him to two concurrent terms of five years imprisonment however however new term meaning that consecutive sentences were required the court sentenced him to four and a half years mandatory consecutive this court sure man the failing to admonish him that his sentences in this case were man mandatory and second the assistant state's attorney misled the court into nearly doubling mr cook sentence to my first point court of mandatory consecutive sentences based on the record defense counsel and the trial court seem to be confused about the consecutive nature of mr cook sentences therefore it's not reasonable to assume that mr cook knew about mandatory consecutive sentences until right before his final recent sting and this can be seen from the record on april seventeenth twenty fifteen mr cook pled guilty and was told he instance between three and seven years he was ultimately sentenced to thirty six months probation a year later his probation was revoked and all march twenty third he admitted to violating his probation and he again was not told  consecutive sentences then on april eighth at his sentencing hearing the state requested consecutive sentences and in response two days later mr cook filed a letter with the court telling the court that he had never been told about the possibility of consecutive sentences in response the court held a hearing on may fourth two thousand and sixteen and determined that the letter was not a motion to withdraw the trial court seemed to be confused was attempting to find out of consecutive sentences were acquired the court asked defense counsel whether cooke had ever been admonished of consecutive sentences at the initial guilty plea hearing counsel told the court that  couldn't speak whether mr coke had ever been told of consecutive sentences because counsel he was not counsel at the guilty plea hearing instead counsel told the court that he had told mr cook of the possibility of consecutive sentences but the quirk failed to look into its own record to determine whether it had ever told mr coke of the possibility of consecutive sentences instead the court found the discretionary sent consecutive sentences were available the court went through an analysis that with aggravating and mitigating factors and chose not to impose consecutive sentences and instead imposed a five year concurrent term years concurrently this sentence is two years greater than the monish months that he was ever given which were three to seven years and five years greater than the sentence he was given at his sentencing on may fourth here the trial court seemed concerned that mr cook his sentence would reflect be reflected by his admonished friends she took care to weigh the aggravating and mitigating factors in this case and she specifically chose not to impose consecutive sentences however when consecutive sentences were required she increased mr cook sentence by two years bus the trial court would likely won't come the opportunity and to the violating his probation and he pled guilty in his companion case fifteenth you have seventeen and so the practical impact even if you would do is admission would be the opportunity to a f exit here would have to go to and they have consecutive and that's below the minimum three years so although the minimum the five year sentence would not be possible in this case it is able to still reconfigure the sentences of that they fall within his and mohnish range if this if he was recent to three years he would be ultimately given six years we're still falls within this three to seven year range that he was admonished of even to his initial guilty plea hearing no i'm asking this to just be sent back to give the trial court the opportunity to reexamine these factors this even if he would withdraw his admission he the practical impact to be the same he would still have the admission what he would admit to violating them as he previously did in both this case and the other case and he would then get the opportunity to and that case is currently on remand from this court so it was sent back to my believe a couple weeks ago to my second point mr cook should also be reasons because the assistant state's attorney misled the trial court into nearly doubling mr cook sentence on five twenty six twenty sixteen the assistant state's attorney told the trial court that had it could amend mr cook sentence so that his sentence ends up reflecting the amount of time that the judge initially intended to give mr tuck the assistant state's attorney concluded and told the judge that she was within her right to kind of maneuver the numbers to reflect the nine years that she intended opposing counsel here alleges that the judge could manipulate the sentence in reference to the companion case fifteen c f seventeen however so the assistant state's attorney is asking the court to kind of look at a case that was never brought up and assume that the trial judge intended that nine year sentence in this case the were asking that this court find that the trial court abused its discretion because it relied on this misleading information and changed its intended sentence and this judge should be given the opportunity to rescind skokie in line with her initial intention she does not have to do that i'm under section five dash four point five fifty the sentence is statutorily valid we're just asking that she be given the opportunity to relook at these factors that she didn't know about or didn't take into account what i would like the court do is you keep two things in mind as are the one number one at no time at no time with the trial judge prior to the  in your honor speaking as well as counsel is the fact that you're treating the consecutive sentences in the aggregate you're saying four and a half was four and a half  asking ten years for the travelling ten years for the grooming consecutive twenty years on the thirteenth see a case we're asking for seven years and seven years consecutive for fourteen we're asking for twenty four years it's mandatory the prosecutor basically advised everybody correctly nobody listened and so what happened is that was the first time that the defendant had heard anything about defendant then writes this letter trudges sees a letter a week or so later calls the case back of her to say look federal we this letter first time he'd ever heard the term consecutive sentences so what i'm going to take and do is i'm treating this as  trial judge a defense counsel prosecutor had to write these are mandatory consecutive nobody listen but one thing that came out is defendant said despite all of this i do not want to  the trial just thought of consecutive sentencing was discretionary even though the prosecutor said your honor it's mandatory all right so we come back at that time there with the trial judge does  sentences the defendant and both cases simultaneously and the reason why this is important because this goes to my argue with respect to this claim that the prosecutor somehow misled the court they were sentenced together and what th sentencing this defendant on everything what is the maximum sentence that she wants to impose on this person how many years to she want to put this person in prison nothing she could have made the other one seventy one but she made him file and the matching and everything to current saw with that happens is again the prosecutor says here i don't think the sentences are supposed to be mandatory consecutive nobody listens couple weeks later defense counsel part that was in question is the thirteen c f case because that's the only one with the sentencing required to be mandatorily consecutive so at that point the trial just says ok they go in all this and what the but in discussing all this the prosecutor says this and this is beyond a page are one fifty three of the record starting line sixteen through line twenty one  it i think mr ramsey and i did find a case of says that your honor can you know amend the numbers of so that it ends up reflecting the amount of time that you initially had given him and i'll find that case and you are within your right to kind of maneuver the numbers so if it was nine years that you intended obviously what the prosecutor saying is when you sentenced him the maximum term that you want to serve give him on all of these offenses was nine years consecutive four and a half and four and a half equals nine the maximum term possible that he was going to serve on the other offenses now mind you these are consecutive ok so he's going to serve knowing is ok there is some mistake so we're going to start over we're going to start oh what am i mis there are cases where what you are saying is what happens because the court has found for whatever reason the lack of the admonishment itself deprive the defendant it's the fact that number one defendant has already said he's already first of all he wasn't admonished properly ok but during the course of everything that went on he was told about consecutive sentences and he was member eventually told about the fact they were consecutive at that point he still did not say he he already had like a motion to withdraw questioning everything he didn't want to withdraw his plea he doesn't want to ok so so but but my point but the thing is the point is this is the fact that according to the case law not whether or not what was on the pill or not really got is not the point that that that is to me is irrelevant that it was an appeal the fact of the matter is if you take a look at the cases i cited to take a look at on whether or not the defendant sentence was increased and so that being the case the four have she be dues that actually from five years to four and a half and i submit that she did that because it's in keeping with the imposed at the same time on the other felonies i don't care that nothing was said by the by the trial judge at that time that was her intent i think that's pretty i think that's pretty much the deuce of all from exactly what happened in this case but respect to defendants argument that the prosecutor misled the trial judge we're trying to think and do is when you look at what the what i read to you that what the prosecutor said the prosecutor said hey look you can maneuver the numbers if it was your intent to give them a maximum if you will of nine years what did that come from the had to come from the fifteen c of case what i'm trying to do is i'm trying to take and from the record trying to take in the deuce what the intent of the trial judge was because she doesn't give a whole lot of explanation about what she's doing and obviously with all the vast confusion that went on with respect to all this ok it just got worse but nonetheless trying to take and figure out from her actions trying to take and figure out what was her intent now if i think if you didn't because  cases came up together because she obviously knew was going on i think what happened is i think what what what it shows why would she why would she why would she take and go from five to four and a half deduction to make and i think that it all plays in and again i can't reiterate this enough when you look at this you cannot look at it adding it together to me the whole thing with the nine years in my book is a red herring with directly talk about the north carolina v pierce increase and argument but first i'd like to discuss in response to your honor's question about whether or not the sentence was valid in the first section of arguments i agree that the set the sentence is statutorily valid in this case the issue mr cook has is that whether or not the trial court abused this is question when it imposed the sentence where the indisputable fact is that mr cook is going to be spending nine years in prison  which part guilty plea will send it back you get the cryptic management but you're risking consecutive fourteen years at seven and seven fourteen so in this case the guilty plea the initial guilty plea that happens  because of all this miscommunication he had a chance to withdraw and he said now i want to do that and then immediately thereafter the judge told him that his sins were discretionary consecutive and she went through an analysis covering both the aggravating mand correct so it does your honors it would make sense to allow the trial judge to go back and just redo both of them and give