which relief can be granted because the record does not reflect rather the probation officer mirandized him before the p s i i interview completely misses the point on the trial court will build roads to participate in the p s i i interview because he exercised his right to remain silent or speckly declining to answer questions during the first p s i interview so this right here is the fifth amendment violation because the trial court compared him to be a witness against himself and in li absolutely no evidence your honor that he did or did that he did or didn't there's no evidence either way all you meant is that out in light of the court's clear order that words had to participate in the interview it doesn't matter either way under the circumstances no reasonable person would think that they would not be penalized for not following the trial court's clear and direct order and furthermore the speeches cited no authority in their br because it was i was compelled to give testimony as part of their work and nothing that happened crack that is correct but we do know that once exercised his right to remain silent during the p s that the first attempt i interview and that he only weighed that silence when the trial court said that he had to the you know we don't know that we don't know what his lawyer told we don't know whether the word courage to cooperate done that the bottom line no dummy he could have done and we don't have any evidence that he didn't do that were we have any evidence that he did that is correct so we have no record to draw any conclusion one way or the other not remain silent she's this if it was stated that she was ordering him to cooperate with the probation department and completely enter vale and therefore anything that happened after that is irrelevant in light of the judge just here in direct order as to this this information is out there i don't know i put the genie back in the bottle it's out there right that is correct however in that hundred the illinois supreme court in hybrid there was a sentencing issue it was a little bit different and now case the trial court improperly consider it an aggravating factor that it should not have considered and the ana supreme court said that upon remand it should be assigned to a new trial but judge roberts obviously trial court judge could be explicitly ordered not to consider these as aggravating factors at the new sentencing hearing and also on the topic again affiliation i wanted to mention that in the p s i read stated that he was a former gang member and this was not acknowledged by either the state or the trial for edwards a sentencing hearing i when they were talking about with his gang membership they talked about it in present tense contacts there was no real knowledge whatsoever that his game membership and that's particularly important under the facts of this case where there was absolutely no evidence at trial that the offense was in any way game related presented only two aggravating factors which were odd number run the game membership information that they have came from the p s i a and number two woods's criminal history the defense presented several factors in court that issues so spent that basically recognizes that it might not be in a defendant's best interest to interrupt or correct the trial court and because that may come back to hurt the defendant later so this point the back end does provide do here that they could have done to put to protect mr wood's fifth amendment rights for example as the state points out in their brief that the trans counsel did not object when the trial court ordered the defendant to comply with the p s i i of the defendant  not make a motion to suppress the statements he made during the p s defense counsel did not object when the p s a report was presented at the sentencing hearing they were considered by the court and sentencing that offended nor the defense counsel raise the issue in a post sentencing motion all of these things illustrate exactly how a defense counsel grows ineffective and as to the apprentice wrong it's clear that the information obtained during the p from the record that the weight placed on the improperly considered factors was still an significant that it did not lead to a greater sentence in light of the fact that the trial court commented ten times on the information that was obtained from the with the information in the p s a was i used to be again right that is correct i would be more sympathetic to your argument if you were saying that the judge did not properly perceive the evidence in twisted it to see if the story came but there could be a mitigating factor right now the words to follow who judges the right do it cooperate with the probation officer is where it all out there so that the judge can see that there is a spark the whole lot that is correct your honor we do know from the record of the sentencing hearing no the defense counsel did not argue that bruce was a former gang member and this was a factor in mitigation at no point did defense counsel point out make your honor  of but the p s i i very clearly reflected that runs was no longer in a gang at this stage mention this specifically in aggravation and defense counsel did not correct the state defense counsel did not argue in mitigation that w was a former gang member and that because he was no longer in beth and the gang this indicated that there was hope for him in light at the end of the tunnel that should warrant a lesser sentence nor did defense counsel correct the trial court when the trial clearly argued repeatedly and that aggravating factor was specifically taken from the p s i i used by the state and also relied on by the court to give words a sentence that was eight years above the minimum lish more questions the need to preserve feel compelled to answer every best question he specifically didn't answer questions regarding the facts of this case that shows that he wasn't intimidated by the traffic and it shows that he did not feel compelled it shows  that that's a fundamental deficiency we don't have the threshold information to make the an now is this the defense wants us to make this clear he has to honor that both which are we don't have the information in the record to make that type of analysis are going to routine booking questions tell you to ask us types of questions and you can use those answers against the defendant even without merienda that's the same thing that happened here come from the p s i a defense counsel could have provided a mitigating information to the court at sentencing that did not come from the p s i i here defense counsel didn't do that but that's because this information was already in the p s i i that it would the words to abandon his fifth amendment rights during the sentencing stage of the case and this is the stage where the united states supreme court has had the right to remain silent is the most important