room which is which is which and with with his hands which is why that is why was it was it you think that weather the weather if when when they're when they tell you in the end and in the negotiations you're going to get twenty four years if you plead guilty you think it's a  twenty four in exchange for a plea deal to self is there something about that that you're saying the record doesn't show that this wasn't a valid plea but actually it kind of does show doesn't it because he got twenty four on a case they could have gotten upwards of seventy five possibly more and in the case the record does show what the plea was face time then we have the plea hearing where the court goes through everything the factual basis was rather extensive he did give written statements to the police i think he needed this to either his wife or someone else struck down so that the proceedings to transfer him to adult court were void but in sentencing they said that that wasn't just you know the easiest question to answer and in their case since the twenty eight was within the statutory framework that it wasn't up it i don't know if they said it was a point they said the that it really wasn't in farm i'm not i'm using that word myself but this case is similar to that in the sense that had the court entered the sentences in the configuration that you agree would be valid i don't i don't understand how this is a void se this i don't know if it's round one of the cases says that the plea discussions do generally rest on basic country principles and i think you can see that that this part of th contractual sor right now in the states in a position where they may not be able to prove their case so should date is to stop a one way street i mean this isn't the whole idea is that the party one of the parties has benefited and now they're trying to and it would be unfair for the state to suggest you know he should've been sense consecutively so now we want to deal and we want to make sure he gets the consecutive sentences that's a totally different scenario but there are multiple cases from morning once again assistant state's attorney mary boland it's interesting the court's questions are very similar to the kinds of questions that the supreme court was asking in the downside an argument in january to the to the ask renders an order for it well that was one of the arguments that i made and woodrow brown with her brown was their case the transfer case and then it actually was race i think i think justice kilbride raised the point in the donalson argument isn't this like brown and the actually argued that it was an administrative transfer and so it wasn't void but anyway that the supreme court decided it didn't have the power to do that but the point is he pled guilty for twenty eight years and the court said that's within the sensing range the same neighborhood had extended the sentencing range but his actual plea was within the proper sentencing range will in this case both of you agree that this could have been properly posed if you were sentenced to six four or four i gave an it's fair and it may be that the supreme court well ultimately decide that a sample applies the court to the question that we did raise that argument there as well so it may be that a sample applies but in the absence of that i think the court has noted contract principle should govern within the space within the use sphere of due process when a defendant is saying i didn't know that i would be subject to the enhanced sentencing like here white different procedural case but in that case there's no way to reform anything he can't get a sentence for less than thirty five and he pled to twenty eight there's no way to fix that when he when there's unfulfilled promises when he's got ineffective assistance of counsel when it's not volunt became the whole issue is that he should have he should have been admonished as today because what he pled to was simply improper it was improper all around so you have to go in that case and start over but when you look at due process and when you say what what what what are the parameters of due process if those parameters don't exist if we don't have a due process concern which we don't in this case then the next question is should a contract principles apply to the answer is yes in the film in this case it's boy actually i think we're pretty on it that's why i think the court raised with roe brown because we're broke brown says we're going to keep a sense within that sentencing range that was a proper sentence even though the process by w the case came to the criminal court is really done we're going to send it back down for that additional hearing but if the court finds that the transfer was proper under prior existing law then it will bind it then the court is directed to keep that twenty eight year sentence and i think that's why i think it was justice kilbride that made that point isn't this a case like clown why can't we in fact justice thomas said by can we fashion a remedy where if there is no prejudice we simply refile rom the agreement and mean for but what if there was another four you know and it didn't fit then the theoretical construct doesn't work this reparation reformation theory it's  in it cleaned up the area i'll get around to parties to agree to what they agreed to and not be able to come in on collateral proceedings and challenge that where there was no other due process concern was that there is a line of cases that say where for x outside the scope that the order is required and if the blue is void then what is the next step is the first thing to be thrown out must we start over that's why i think with rope around makes sense because you don't start over you take the parties where they are and you're right in this case the numbers do work in another case they might not but i would point out that the illinois supreme court in several cases well has made decisions let me look at this language and brown in brown here's kind of where the they they say that the sensory aspect is the more difficult issue but what they say is well a sentence or portion thereof not authorized by statute  in this case that the portion of the aggravated criminal sexual assault sense that was twenty four years that the portion of that only became void when these other sentences well if they became white when these other sentences are attach this course there's nothing wrong with that sentence so the portion of it if this were done correctly and both sides agree that in this case a sentence of six for four  four was valid so that in this case rather than whatever reforming the portion of that first sentence that is actually void if you will is the portion over and above the six years and the portion of the each other sentence is all only void to the extent it exceeds the authority so under time and i'm sure all these other principles that we have to look at it is true that a portion of each one of these is void but not all of them solve rather than reforming it that the fact of the matter is is that really i'm getting back to my the question that  is this really void but your visit rather a situation where a portion of each one of these sentences exceeds the maximum and it's it for the supreme court to do this is one thing w they have the supervisory authority that we certainly lack but they have suggested that it's only void to the extent that it exceeds what the law permits and in this case it could clearly be argued of six for four and four is not forty that is absolutely correct that is another way to simply say we leave intact because individually there's nothing wrong with any of these sentences and there's nothing wrong with the plea bargain and there are  pointed out in his brief he said johnson here is reading if you're pleading guilty to aggravated sexual assault you cannot be given four years in the penitentiary right you can hear that was the problem in those cases and that was the problem pierre white there's no way for  they say the senses were in donaldson at the plea agreement was upheld the sentences were vacated i can't remember whether they used the actual word void but the the point is the plea bargain there was nothing wrong with the plea bargain and so it was sent back and so the question and the illinois supreme court is asking is the difference i think justice one of the justices i was trying to so what is the difference between serving fifty years consecutively or fifty years concurrently where is the harm where is the project us and so that's the point there are some things that structurally cannot be served the way they were entered here white ther things that can be serviced just the nature and which the courts are accepting that plea bargain was entered is problematic as there are there other cases pending that you're aware of nine nine cases i can't cite them because they're not in my post but i do know there have been at least nine cases decided on the issue of a following donaldson either applying donaldson or finding white to apply depending on  to you know if there might be some confusion i get ninety it was a ninety seven that we it was actually july twenty second ninety seven that we had the single course of conduct change yet we're always going to be bound by due process and you have to look at whether due process is implicated in a case like this there is no due process consideration and as as i pointed out in my brief let's say the party centered in to lay u might say i know what you plead to a lesser offense that power still exists it's just if you're going to plead to these cases there are certain consequences that occur and the statutes of the epicenter has decided these are not only trigger offenses father there's a way to serve them and that consecutively but there would be nothing that stopped the state in a proper case from or in a different case from allowing someone to plead to something that wasn't a trigger offense for example so that power still exists but that's why we have the checks and balances we have the adversary system it is rare that the state would choose to allow defendant to to make those decisions or to drive the boat it's rare that the defense doesn't get to be heard i mean and i would ask why why we were to buy stock in this case why why w white because in what you couldn't get actually some of the out of state cases i think the california supreme court said you know what it's just an enhancement the sentence we're not hearing it so in some jurisdictions they apparently do apply to stop it so that in illinois the way the case law has developed it seems to me there are limits it's a stab because you can wait to spend a lot of time talking about you know that that it was very important to the website later that these enhanced corrected in a different way through a proper alternative it wasn't and the price to be paid is that everybody has to go back and white well in white though i think you have to take into account its procedural posture and can you really drake you know he he received the benefit of the bargain when he's moving to make his case later i mean i don't know that that's really the same situation as is what we have here but i do think that justice palmer when he's suggest grammys you know do we have that power i mean do we really well i think in this case you have the power to follow donalson which is from the song this district and is properly decided and it is the current state of the asli the supreme court will also mentally decide on also it's pending it's already been heard it's probably going to come out within the next few months so the court may choose to take it under advisement or wait or make the proper decision which is the donaldson decision and we ma and you start to say something and you didn't quite get it out i was and i wanted to come back to it when when i was talking to you about how from a theoretical standpoint or no you know it's an imperfect construct because it won't always fit and you start to say well the supreme court has made decisions and i think you know you were about to say i think you were going to say something like the supreme court has made decisions in specific cases yes yes i apologize i know you but you're wasn't because you didn't in each case that guilty plea was problematic and williams which is the one thousand nine hundred seven case the state recommended a sentencing cap of seven here and it was a single found retail theft the court actually gave three years plus a consecutive forty months of years old the parties in their case the defense the prosecution the court the truth in sentencing will not apply which of course affects how long he's actually going to have to serve there's no question about it since here now there's no question that i present not that there's not an issue but in that case there wasn't and there was an actual murder where they put all caps so everybody would know early guess what that that was not proper under the law supreme court doesn't vacate everything it sends it back for an equitable solution and the applicable solution is to reduce his sentence to the statutory minimum which truth in sentencing to apply so again the court reformed only the sentence and then of course everyone is familiar with whitfield a more recent case from two thousand and five once again the supreme court does not they keep the guilt reflective of why the court was very focused on what the remedy should be in these types of cases didn't seem to be inclined to unravel the whole plea bargain and especially in a case like this and as you mentioned justice mcbride we're talking about a case that started twenty years ago child sexual abuse this kid has lived with that for ten years the court it's been in the court proceedings since two thousand and three it's been the direct appeal was affirmed in two thousand and seven we're back here again in two thousand and thirteen and now he wants a new trial so i think that you can't ignore also the state's interest and the iconic proceedings there's a stronger basis for arguing the finality of judgment so why don't we have a illinois that suggests there's some problem with the manner in which the sun system he served we also have very strong case law that suggests not only from the illinois supreme court but from this court to in donalson that the correct solution in a case like  and unilaterally i mean i'm paraphrasing obviously but you know laterally i try to get the benefit of their bargain while when they quietly sit on their hands for a while then come back and try to use it as a sort of a court justice quintessentially would have found that to to be unacceptable and he concurred in the decision in donaldson to to reform the sentence in that case anything further nothing further  in the scenarios that i described the the court didn't impose consecutive sentences rigidly right in which scenario well i'm going to the statute he could have been sentenced properly finding it not to be a sing right but was a kind of what even lets you agree though that it that the least that he could be sentenced to and still make it valid would be twenty four years that is the  how can we say we what is your suggestion that this police should be making he should be given a new trial because a manifest injustice aren't really the sentence that apparently they all its power that sentence is void but the other there's multiple cases that say you're not there's no absolute right to vacate a guilty plea you have to show the defendant has shown the fs justice what we do with those cases i d fifteen years down the road when no one's trying to impose any greedier bird not him then what he it looks like everybody greed this is this case is worth twenty four years four years it's worth twenty or you c just a few with this is what they're all are now would be at would would you rule would you still argue that since the senses weren't  also i think we have to look at it in the setting in which it took place it was not a plea guilty it was actually a bench trial and it was actually the pellet court justice who wrote the majority opinion that said that  and in this because mandatory sentences have to be almost b f r it wasn't what it was either way then the supreme court decided that what it did if a court becomes aware that a sentence is void it h