forty years which would allow for his release around age sixty five  special circumstances presented by this case it would be appropriate for the or to use it supervisory authority to remove that in hanson from the day and sentence now beginning with the st issue the defendant has argue people lacked authority to file a motion to correct the sentence because there is no such express authority to file this type of motion and his statute or rule but no express authority was necessary in people versus marker for example this court did not doubt that the people had a story to file a motion to reconsider and order suppressing evidence notwithstanding the fact that there is no express authority for such a or lacked jurisdiction to entertain that motion because the defendant the notice of appeal while the motion was still pending but this is an incorrect reading of illinois supreme court is timely if it is filed so within thirty days of the resolution of any timely post judgment motion it does not distinguish between motions filed by the prosecution and motions filed  then in the nd sentence of the rule that sentence provides that if a notice of appeal is filed while it timely those judgment motion is ending that notice shall have no effect and should be stric counsel and the ordinary meaning of counsel is includes both you trying to use for the prosecution and the attorneys for the defense and you can see this elsewhere in the rules where the rules use the word to the record on appeal should include among other things the record of the proceedings including closing argument of counsel and the transcripts of proceedings at sentencing including arguments of counsel there's no extend time in the reviewing court and they specified the filing they say that any motion for extension of time must be supported by an affidavit or certification showing the date on which counsel was engaged term pointed to prosecute the the appeal they say that the motion should include a statement that counsel has conferred with opposing counsel and opposing counsel has no objection to the motion and they state that the motion shouldn't have proposed order that  circuit all counsel of record so again these rules use counsel repeatedly to refer to the attorneys for the prosecution as well as the attorneys for the defense these are just a couple of examples other examples and this is not an only to counsel for the defense is inconsistent with the plain language of statute but even in our eye of the rule excuse me but even if we were on with our plain language argument which we don't think we are at worst that would mean that the wall is ambiguous and if this were the final rule is ambiguous the court should interpret the wall consistent with the public policy of allowing trial courts to read errors in the st instance and avoid unnecessary review if this court were to adopt the defendant's version of google what it would mean and there was some discussion about this before is that every time that people wish to correct what is i war was adopted in order to revive a prior practice that existed in some or it's of treating a post judgment motion filed by the defendant after a notice of appeal as essentially an implicit request to withdraw the notice of appeal the problem with this argument is that there is no word for it the defendant hasn't cited any and we haven't been able to find any ourselves certainly there is nothing supporting it and then maybe comments under six to sixty that would send a message to the defense bar that they should simply wait thirty days in with before they withdraw there is no need for them to withdraw before that thirty day time period to file the motion expires court has has held and in other cases that it's decisions you know surveys control potations and guidance regarding its rule so certainly while a rule change could be done it seems unnecessary to me standing here i can't think i can't think of many it does seem to be a relatively unique circumstance i know that rules it so or i believe sets for in these particular circumstances because we know under people versus castleberry that there is a right to bring a mandamus action seeking to a correct a sentence that it would be appropriate for the state to file his judgment motion seeking to correct the sentence because it serves the purpose of avoiding that unnecessary appellate review i think one of the concerns we have about the defendant's position is that if the state can't move to correct an unlawful sentence there no more questions on the st issue i'll move on to the nd issue which relates to the firearm enhanced meant again we agree with the defendant that the enhanced think should not have been a bye to his attempted st degree murder at the time he committed these offenses this court's decision in people vs morgan which had declared that particular enhanced meant to be unconstitutional was controlling this point out that a sentence is void only if the trial court lacked jurisdiction to sentence the defendant there is no argument here nor could there be but the trial court lacked jurisdiction to sentence this defendant forfeited his act of acting challenge that said we do agree that under the unique circumstances presented by this case it would be appropriate in the interests of justice for this court to use it supervisory authority and remove the firearm