i didn't know whether that has been explained to you but there's been a family emergency and just the sidemen is not going to be able to be with us the south after noon but he will be reviewing the tapes of the argument and then will county but there are three different things that we believe she did that error and that's why we filed the hill the basis of the ill is excessive sentence one we have pled and i think we've been fairly ar that there were certain factors in mitigation that were in the tree sense investigation report there was testimony stated an allocution statement or remorse it was a point in time during the sentencing hearing where judge  not made a very profound statement that i found that there is no mitigation here whatsoever so shifts permanently stated on the record and in her opinion that there is no mitigation whatsoever now i realize that there is a  motion to reconsider as well where she an articulated further but she didn't specifically find what mitigation was there what was not there and i understand there's case on judge that says a court doesn't need to specifically make certain findings but we believe based upon th the circumstances that and especially her very specific statement during her ruling that the court finds no mitigation whatsoever we believe that that was error and we believe that was an abuse of discretion by way of our standard of review and we think should go back to the trial court for that basis now there are a couple other reasons that we've articulated in our brief as to why it was an excessive sentence we we pointed out a lot of other court opinions where there were the facts circumstances the priors the factors and aggravation were huge who did this particular case where the  gave a shake up twenty years in prison so we believe based upon the prior cases which we've pled cited and given the specifics on those specific senses that this is a case where the excessive sentence was greatly at variance with the spirit and purpose of the law and as compared to other cases so that's a nd reason that we have argued and we're looking for the case to go back to the trial court for further consideration believe judge bach that speculated she speculated with no basis no evidence to no factors and aggravation that when jacob robinson gets out of prison that she's scared and she believes and she  so based upon those three different products we believe that there is an excessive sentence that was imposed in the trial court and that's why we're asking that the appellate court review the matter and  as you point out as being one of your prongs in your three prong attack on this sentence you didn't mention the motion to reconsider i wonder if you disagree that the  clearly basically rehabilitate herself and that she specifically said that she considered you know his mental health the letters his character and the mitigating factors but found that they on that as well and i don't think that mr williams to a fair job and i'm not arguing ineffective assistance that's not alleged that's not pled but to answer your honor's question whether or not judge the trial judge i guess  made the record clear that she considered that i don't believe that her statements on the record were enough to explain away her specific barrier to kulit specific finding that there's no medication she finds no mitigation now during the motion to reconsider the trial judge indicated that i have considered all that as i considered all these things and she laid out a few things as well but she did not specifically for say that ok misspoke before it's not as if i'm not finding any mitigation that's what i said before but that's not what i meant i misspoke and she commented upon these other factors in mitigation that were presented but she didn't express lee find in her ruling on the motion to consider as i review the trial transcript that she was in fact correct intercept correcting the record she didn't in fact in my opinion based upon my review specifically articulate that there is mitigation i don't believe she said that there is mitigation to reverse which she had said earlier to correct that misspeaking if in fact that was a mistake and she instead commented upon the i've reviewed things that might be considered as such but i'm not finding any i'm not finding that is mitigation she didn't specifically do that so you're out of that's a great great question and you know what i examined the trial record based upon the sentencing and the motion to reconsider i was at st i thought wow did judge did the trial judge directors often but it's my belief that she did not so we're at a loss we're it's an unknown territory we don't know exactly you know what whether she found mitigation all i know is that during the original sense in her and she said definitively that there is no mitigation on the motion to reconsider she alluded to certain things but didn't give me enough specifics for me to not draft this in the appeal and i'm not going to draft anything frivolous i think we've got a good argument in this regard but i hope that answers your question thank you indeed and with respect to your argument that she said she was afraid of the defendant and that she thought he was going to commit this crime again isn't that really kind of the flip side the requirement that the judge is supposed to look at whether or not this is likely to reoccur isn't isn't that really par analysis i believe it's a comparable analysis and i think that's a good point as well we believe that she went above and beyond that over and beyond that and specifically enhanced his sentence on the basis that she drew a conclusion a definite conclusion that upon him in release from prison that he is going to commit this again not that he's likely or less likely or more likely not likely but that he is going to do this and that was more of a definitive statement as i read it in the transcripts and that's why we believe that that speculation went over the map and we think that the court needs to pay attention to that as well did you are address the state's issue that we can't even get to these issues because of the failure to question the  illinois supreme court i'm not asking that the court ignore that it's the illinois supreme court we can ignore the illinois supreme court i'm not suggesting or asking that this court do that in the case of as well now they're doing it johnson in two thousand and nineteen was defendant must file a motion to withdraw the guilty plea ok that happened in johnson and the court but the issues the issues in johnson they pertain specifically to appellate court ruled in the supreme court ruled even further that eight as it pertains to improper sentencing factors the there needs to be the motion of withdraw the guilty plea st which there was in that case the point being your honors that  case the johnson case did not specifically rule about failing to consider mitigation the johnson case did not specifically rule about failing to consider the variance issue that we've talked about so our case the robinson case is distinguishable in a couple of different regards perhaps this court needs to make about that and make a further really to expand johnson or to earlier explain jetson but as i look at  district cases right now it doesn't seem like we have anything that particular it's the law in this particular way and i know the government has cited a couple of other cases and on the appellate level for instance they cited haley which is the rd district case that cited richard which is the th district case and those both of those cases are on or at the appellate level in separate districts not our district richard was a two thousand and twelve games you know not the facts of johnson johnson who lost his motion any argued the motion on appeal and isn't that what we're really talking about you argue that he had to win the motion and i don't see that that's necessary at all in reading the supreme court's opinion they have dress the issue of his failure to raise that issue the denial of the motion to withdraw a plea on appeal and they say no you can't do that explain why the trial court was wrong in failing to grant the motion to withdraw play but you can't just circumvent that and say well we lost at the trial court level the burden is high and so we're not even going to raise an appeal we're just to go straight to excessive sentence and that's where johnson says no you can't yes johnson in the johnson case there certainly was emotional withdraw the guilty plea at the trial level by the way i read that case i wasn't i wasn't aware that there was a motion which draw in the hill the notice to appeal and then the brief as well your honor whether that's significant to the court or not i was under the impression that that that was not an appeal  in this particular case and jacob robinson's case when i read you the transcripts it did not appear to be any appealable basis to appeal the motion to withdraw the guilty plea in the denial of the trial court's motion to withdraw the plea that's why we have not alleged that in the appeal but your honor we believe there's a there's enough here based upon precedent and the illinois supreme court which certainly is the most important johnson case is certainly important here no doubt about that whatsoever not disputing that whatsoever i just think that this case is distinguishable and i i think i believe that we can move forward with the excessive sentence issues and that's why we prepare cannot get to the issue of whether the defendants sentence was excessive or whether the trial court failed to consider mitigation or any of his three prone to specifically says when fully negotiated plea which is what this the how is this a fully negotiated place when in fact all the state does is say we're not going to recommend a sentence greater than eighteen years the defendant is still subject to the entire range of sentences there's absolutely no consideration whatsoever on the defendant's part although i recognize as as having been a trial judge for seventeen years please like this printed all the time and i did him as a prosecutor how i ever got a defense attorneys who agreed now as i look back i wonder because the defendant gets nothing out of this deal unless they somehow thin that the mere recommendation of the state is all it takes is to convince a trial judge that that's what the sentence should be because in this case as the judge made it clear she was not bound by that recommendation she could exceed it and in fact she did so how can this be considered a full and negotiated plea when the defendant gets nothing out of it well the state has given up affirms that on the record yes he understands that my problem is trying to figure out how this truly qualifies as a fully negotiated plea under six thousand and fourteen under johnson when  there's nothing given to the defendant whatsoever of any substantive nature it's simply be the if serial recommendation of the state that carries no weight whatsoever with the court specific sentence the they're still arrange the for the further can be subject to but here's the problem as i see it in this situation if you go back to the cases upon which johnson relies you go back to evans india has a number of other cases that are referenced in where they all come from jurisdictions where if you go back and look at those cases the east the recommended  fact a cap on the sentence it's other words when the state says we're not going to recommend more than x then the record indicates in those cases the defendant is not subject to more than x we have here however a situation that doesn't seem to be addressed by any of those particular facts situations in those cases where that recommendation in fact is not a real cap on the sentencing exposure of the defendant is is that a distinction that we should be considering at all i do not believe so i agree with you that there is no we're not going to actually ask for consecutive sentencing or standard term sense and then they are clearly making a concession on the sentence the defendant can be exposed to here there is no concession as to what the defendant can be exposed to they're just sand we're not going to recommend more than eighteen but the judge is perfectly capable of sentencing you know thirty i are get i'm still trying to figure out how hot his or her able to get defense attorneys  to those plays but i did as a prosecutor and that's what we've got here well mr manchin i'd like to have just as d r men i'm proud to say there are was never a defense attorney who would get that kind of or a comment and generally speaking when i was on the bench at the trial court level we will have a situation where i wouldn't other judges would indicate whether or not we were willing to bind ourselves to that cap so i think this is kind of an odd situation that we have but on the issue of whether or not this is a negotiated clique mean we do have a definition of what attorney argued that one buy some say we will stand on the motion so that no added no arguments no further development of what was meant by those allegations and this is i think this is just a way for the defendant to try to get around richardson by saying ok i file a perfunctory motion to withdraw the plea now i can sound uncertain and that is not what richardson means if it's simply filing the motion d to withdraw is enough there's no point in the richardson holding i think of the cases the haley sprinkle in richard said in my brief right there when the rejected so that this court simply cannot get to the issues if it could that there is no merit to the st claim as your honor noted the question of out of the syncing hearing to say the court did not consider limiting factors he ignores the truck course expressed references to the that he was mindful of the every factor mitigation of the thin it refers to an end in their findings below so the say the court never considered them is completely rejected refuted by the us by their statements at the sentencing hearing by their later player if occasion at the hearing the motion to reconsider that they considered it but just determine that the mitigation was outweighed by the aggravating factors so that the mitigation was other cases should be rejected i believe it was people vs firm where the supreme court express or rejected a cross good person analysis so in the own time you can compare the even of this court can get the excessive sentencing claims that they are refuted by the records and should be rejected because the court did consider each of the mitigating endanger a self all it shows is that he had some liver damage due to excessive drinking but said nothing about treatment or whether that would be aggravated prison to say so that hair pins the quote unquote speculation regarding further crimes that was the civic lee authorized by statute was proper to make perfectly clear this case the jacob robinson case is despair there's distinguish and very unique in comparison to the johnson case in this case the state recommended a cap of eighteen judge sentence shake up to twenty years now the johnson case judge present skee the state that particular case they agreed not to pursue further charges they agreed to do certain other concessions charges dismissed there's not been any agreement by the state not to pursue consecutive sentences though something that was talked about a little bit earlier there is no concession by the state to file other class  taxes any additional charges so basically the only thing that the defense lawyer got out of that was that the state to commit that they would make a recommendation and that's it but that's not at sentencing concession that's not it that's in regards to the the government's pressing the sentence being greatly in variance with other sentences your honor what i do know is what i've read in people vs luna in people v with your birth both two thousand and twelve th district cases and that the court there simply stated that a sentence that is within statutory limits is excessive and bess an abuse of disc court's discretion only when it is greatly at variance with the spirit and purpose of the law or metaphysically disproportionate to the nature of the offense so we believe that those comparable cases that we cited put in a brief that we made reference to today are