going through the reasons of mitigation weighing aggravation so for rehabilitation seems to me to be something that the constitution mandates that trucker consider and here if you look at the trash to page seventy one seventy four there's not a single mention and the evidence presented in support of that which was the rehabilitation i think principally your honor but there there was a second case that came out during that period of time the sentencing reconsideration hearing wasn't tandem with the conditions in her testimony is replete with respect to those particular types of rehabilitative potential centers and treatments offered so that's what i think that is missing in this case there is nothing to suggest some consideration specifically set forth in the record by the truck court that didn't sit or didn't sit at the rehabilitation potential that wasn't done in this case and i think that this comes down to because again dr house very specifically talks about various different opportunities in the community and how he she testifies in this case he was not given the opportunity to address some of these issues she testifies clearly at length about how  all these issues with this individual had great effect on this ability to comport himself to comply and so forth she talks about it page thirteen of the herd of the transcript there are people who are using advanced biofeedback techniques for in fact consider all of the rehabilitation potential the other thing i think that the court has to look at in terms of rehabilitation potential is mr robeson's own statement and elocution here he says first step to any process like this has to do with recognizing your powerless for your diction and i recognize that that's different than i think what we've ever recognized before he said clearly an allocution on drugs it's a problem for me and that's something that i have counsel good morning my name is john's a member of the port district appellate prosecutor's office and this case is your honour's are where the defendant alleges three main things that were the trial court arrogance in saying this isn't the first does it fail to consider the mental health issues of a recent decision from your honour's for justice harris concurred with justice connect a court is not required to express an outline every factor considers for sentencing and we presume the court considered all mitigating factors on the record in the absence of explicit evidence to the that evidence unless there is evidence to the contrary here again evidence was present showing defendant's troubled past multiple duis previous convictions for possession of marijuana unsuccessful attempts at rehabilitation probation community service as well as a prior battery and i believe the defendant was arrested for a dui while this initial case started going on so that says something about his rehabilitation potential there was also evidence of mitigation that was shown they were seriousness of the fence and that probation was not a viable option the trial court stated on the record he's an opportunity after opportunity through the courts to address the substance abuse and his alcohol issues he's putting the public at risk the court here is clearly w lowering yes i believe the court did recognize that the friend had was making progress the defendant had a stable now if you should work he did admit to his wrongs that he was trying to better himself and the court even said he was a very smart individual he was progressing in his classes and he was doing a great job and i think all the evidence that presented it to court realize that they should lessen the defendant's sentence because he was showing some signs of progress upon the mitigation evidence of that received today i intend to enter an amended judgment order in fourteen c of ten sixty nine the question then becomes is mitigation evidence that considered sufficient to encapsulate rehabilitative evidence or not i think that's my only point in this case that mitigation is different than just the potential for rehabilitation isn't listed under the mitigating factors i can't s doesn't it doesn't the court also state in producing his sentence i've got a fuller picture of defendant who is obviously an intelligent and articulate individual who absent the substance abuse issues has the ability to be a contributing member of society doesn't that speak directly to rehabilitate a potential judge did you one one might refer that also i think points to the fact courts said maybe i don't give this guy a break because he's had chances  do it i think those are different things and that's one of the point here is that if you look at the testimony presented by the travancore and if you and again if i'm wrong with respect to whether that court asked to specifically address the issue that i'm going to lose but  believe that if you look at the case i mentioned and if in fact you look at what was done in this case there wasn't anything specifically set up or you can read page seventy one seventy four there's nothing there cerebral patient thank you ok thank you counsel the case will be taking hundred