may please the court this morning i intend to focus on issue one and if i have time to briefly touch on the sentencing issues the person accused of first degree of acute the person accused of attempted first degree murder is not guilty if he believes he's acting in self defense the jury in this case was asked if my client casey guyton had an actual belief in self defense and i found she dead applying the backslider law my client's conviction for attempted first degree murder should be reverse self defense and so a person who attempts a killing with actual belief and self defense cannot be convicted of attempted first degree murder this is the case regardless of whether the belief is reasonable or unreasonable in people versus lopez most supreme court found that a person acting with the mitigating circumstance of and these them self defense lacked the intent to unlawfully kill this whole thing was echoed in other supreme court cases and honored by the clear commission the only question then is whether my client acted with an actual subjective belief in self defense the verdicts reflect that that the jury made such a finding the evidence a trial showed that my client got into a sufficiency of the evidence has to defer to factual findings in the verdict in this case the factual finding that one of the client my client shot at the van he was up he had an actual belief in self defense and the court interviews the fish sufficien the evidence must make all reasonable inferences in favor of the state but is not allowed to make on reasonable inferences opposition is that are beyond reasonable to believe that my client fired a gun at mr sullivan or with a different  park his car and he saw the van coming back in the same direction he said he saw it he testified that he saw mr furze reached down for a gun and he believed he was about to be fired on and that's when he fired shots so that would be the evidence and you saw him reached out of that testimony they believe that he had an actual believe in self defense they just didn't believe that it was an object of belief but that that the belief was in fact reasonable under the circumstances but the fact that the finding has reasonable fatal shootings made under the same circumstances worse than fatal shootings another the supreme court and people vs morgan addressed a similar argument as this and that case to remove no mitigating circumstances present in this case beyond a reasonable doubt the defendant committed attempt first degree murder which is separate from his conviction for a temp for second degree for second degree murder involving themselves are viewing the evidence in the light most the prosecution any rational trier of fact could have found the elements attempt first remember beyond a reasonable doubt now defendant i think is asking you to take that mitigating circumstance which is not a mental state from the second degree murder conviction impute that to the to the attempt first degree murder conviction of endor florists and the rock does not provide for that the attempt to murder conviction attempt murder provides the state has to prove that the defendant took a substantial step towards killing under florus that he had the intent to kill on the floors and he wasn't justified in using the force that he used the first degree murder statute with respect to what the jury had to find before they could get to second degree found the same thing and the evidence supports the finding of  never displayed a gun at all they argued about the fender bender they got back in their cars and the defendant left the area went to his car took her away from the area got a gun out of this car and went back to the intersection because he believe that the the evidence showed that sell the car said he would be back the car drives around the block while he's driving around the block the defendant with his gun standing next to the trees sort of hidden a little bit a car comes around the corner he shoots into the passenger side point forced jumps out of the van and he runs the state's witnesses david johnson saw the traffic altercation never saw flora's get out of the car he saw the the accident turned and saw the accident and he testified that that there was no i'm sorry excuse me david johnson saw the saw the author cation heard them arguing he testified that the passenger never got out and didn't have a gun when the van returned he saw the defendant standing next to the tree and he saw him start shooting eric smith saw the same thing a bit of a commotion with the the altercation the traffic violation and he saw the defendant come away from that situation get a gun and what does he hear the defendant say that that m f for is going to pay and he goes back to that intersection with his gun and he waits for that van to come and he shoots into it and then the jury found again and with the specter of snit he never saw anyone in that van with anything in their hands never doing anything never making any motions towards the towards the defendant nothing they are coming back around from that intersection to get out of there when the defendant opens fire into that van the early of the exit with the nice lady  actually by the victim's van and she testifies to nobody telling nothing's going on when force when the the car crashes force gets out and he runs he does not have a gun in his hand based on that evidence it wasn't until the defendant the defendant is the only one with the self serving testimony who puts the gun and or floor says ham based on that evidence the jury could have any rational schreier fact could have found the elements of attempt first degree murder beyond a reasonable murder so his argument is how can there be how can i receive a net thirty years in jail versus nineteen years net for has given to defendants to kill but there is a circumstance which allows them to be less culpable and receive a lesser sentence and there's also the attempt murder statute which under start you can happen aggregate you can have a twenty find with respect to each of the offenses i mean the x e has different not different mental states because it's a mitigating circumstance he gets he almost killed some gets a break on the second degree murder because the jury finds a mitigating circumstance but he that would be across comparison at looking at two different states in the penalties they carry which is prohibited under people vs sharp i think you have to look at what he's charged with the offenses he committed the jury's findings with respect to that i mean there's  assumption that if he had died and the defendant releases in his brief there's assumption that had the victim died had had any floors and died then he would have been convicted of second degree murder that he would have been convicted of second degree murder that's not necessarily the truth say it again the legislature i can only say that the legislate the legislature has provided for those circumstances under which you can't you can't look at the attempt first degree murder will have a mitigating circumstance attached to it the law doesn't provide for that i understand that he that his argument is in fact that it's just disparate at the legislature hasn't seen fat in that circumstance and they say under lopez  lopez is a case that rejects that claim that had i killed the person i would have gotten a lesser sentence than if i didn't kill on the legislatures and title to make those determinations with respect to how penalties are assessed and with respect to the charges in this case and the way the defendant based on the evidence was convicted and the senses that go with that i don't think that that was improper sentence for that can be i'm sorry can be great or can be based on that attempt first murder first attempt first degree murder conviction i see my time is also people versus reagan williams which was in a poker case which refers to second degree attempted second degree murder conviction indicating that if there is evidence of mitigating circumstance and it wouldn't normally be attempted first degree noted any factual distinction anything that would indicate that my clients but least in self defense change throughout the shooting it happened very quickly there's no reason not to have to infer the mitigating circumstance existed with regard to mr flores as the jury found that it did with regard to mr selden far with regard i just want to be clear we are not asking for attempted second degree murder to be recognized here it's somewhat it was not in a position to accept the money and then reasonable an argument about unreasonable self defense because it wasn't instructed on that that's why there's no inconsistent verdicts in this case i think your honor put it right when you