was raised and on which pilate was granted deals with me the process by which the state commits or releases a sexually violent person and that implicates both concerns of public safety  as well as the due process of law involved when depriving an individual of his liberty and the second question whether through three a one would act as a safe harbor if the people mistakenly a premature notice of appeal more broadly addresses the appellate court's jurisdiction to consider the merits of cases of public importance such as this one where the concerns underlying narrow jurisdictional rules are not present and the court need look no did the question is is whether the apple e would be prejudiced by surprise that the notice of appeal was was given effect whether and whether  the the if assuming that this isn't a rony asleep premature notice of whether the remaining issues have been addressed before the matter did get to the appellate court and to give a sense of how broadly the drafters of for a to appear to be drafting that rule on first here talks about some of the cases that the committee notes reference in drafting forty two and in those cases there was a decision that disposed of some of not dispose of all of the claims in a case and when those those appeals got to the appellate courts there still was no judgment dealing with the remaining claims the appellate courts at that point said we don't have jurisdiction but they held that the notice of  that yes under the safe harbor provision the courts should have the authority to review the merits of those of those claims there are circumstances where i mean that the courts have discussed frequently the  change that this is i there is no indication either in the statute or in the ruling in this case that there was any possibility that the commitment to conditional release was still up for dispute so the court c initial commitment order the word initial doesn't suggest that the court is going to reconsider its commitment order under under section forty during under any ongoing proceeding under both subject to mandatory periodic reads them a nation under section fifty five so regardless of which order is deemed final as this court is well aware often the appeal from the education ind the and in this case i think this also will yes ron and i will leverage by to say in the context of the way that that first year says a decision that would have been final had the judgment immediately followed respondent if the if the state had not prepared a conditional release plan within sixty days there's spondon would have been entitle to seek relief compelling the state to produce a conditional release plan which i believe would constitute enforcement of the joyce third order so in that sense this is an order that if the judgment had immediately followed if the court had said defendant is to be conditionally release descends proceedings and issued a judgment at that point that that would wall would would not comply necessarily with the way the statute seems to read would on the question would be a final a prepare a plan to to enact his conditional release at that point so i was the right that's being educated is whether or not he will be confined to a secure facility or grant is conditional lease the only order directing the state to conditionally release him is the july third order so necessary for the state at that point to prepare a plan to enact that judgment but that's the only order directing the state to condition would live where he received treatment and so on and so forth in a case where it was actually inappropriate in a violation of the court's discretion to grant conditional release at all in this case sort of highlights that as the respondent himself points out  some of the statutory factors that the court's directed to to consider in granting conditional lease there was absolutely no evidence in the dispositional hearing that those could be satisfied unconditional release a proper place receive treatment a proper place to live a proper plain way to earn any living and meet his own when the world and so prepare you conditional release plan under those circumstances when in fact it was an abuse of the court not a unique or or unheard of circumstance for appellate review and i think clearly in this circumstance where the where the harm or the risk of harm of in forcing a dispositional judgment of conditional release that is so wrong is to be an abuse of discretion is certainly high enough to cut to morning to say under those circumstances to clarify this if i understand correctly when the july three order was entered this in respond it was not released would not be released until the conditions or the plan was implement correct that struck down so the follow up on justice freeman's question the only thing that was in forcible on that order at that time was enforcing the state to repair the plane approaching until the plan was long the state has to prepare that plan and so there's no question of sort of an indefinite you know week for for his conditional least once the court orders his conditional release and leaving out of the equation for the moment the question of an appeal taken from that order once the court orders is conditional release the process is has started running that will end with him being released it just requires time for the state that point now that's the condition circumstances under which you have a conditional release order that is an abuse of discretion where where the court has not considered the factors that is required to consider and  the review is by appeal the people in this case did file a motion to reconsider the disposition and and argued at that point you know the the absence of proper care for respondents outside  of the rushville secured treatment detention facility and and wast on the motion to reconsider so the key issues have been fully when you get it at that point in the end it judgments explicitly applies for it to do certain on final decisions where is the second district in this case explicitly said that three zero three one should only apply to a final decision right or to the  on first year on the other hand would not have been covered by the second district's interpretation three of three one were mean for interpretation or determination rather by the court in first here was no less significant than what the court had remaining to do following the july third order the court's findings of fact and law in that case i had not been developed and were subject to dispute by the parties at the time first year filed his notice of appeal so your honor asked earlier if if the inability to prepare a conditional release plan might result in the disposition being reconsidered i think that is less or is more that first years notice of appeal to delay forward to the date of the final order and the fact that the notice of appeal simply relates forward as opposed to the non final decision coming appealable should ease respondents concern that the forward to the date of the final judgment and the application of this rule would not create excessive new appellate edition there's no question that some litigation would then focus on the question of the reasonableness of a party's incorrect belief that a decision was final but that kind of determination is not foreign to the appellate courts and would be no more prevalent than the current litigation that focuses on whether decision was in fact  the respondent respectfully suggest the answer that question is no if this court disagrees with then how the opportunity to reach the second question and address the merits on this case of this case on the merits this court should affirm the second district's ruling because the july three order was a non final not appealable ruling and the nothing in the text of rule three of three would save the states otherwise premature appeal before addressing the merits of my argument i first want to take a moment dress a few of the points were brought up during the state's case just as thomas is correct in that there is no liberty interest in stake in this case there is no constitutional right to be vindicated the question before this court is so he a question of procedure you will be released from incarceration nobody will be released from custody and the broad interpretation of how rule of three zero three should be interpreted or perhaps a question of a public nature is not a question of a substantial public nature akin to whether or not parents can reach fuz lifesaving treatment for their child or kin to the procedures by which someone is in voluntarily receive medication there is no conflict of law in this case rule three o three rule four in the federal from the federal system the second district appeal the second second district ruling and all the federal rulin this court says yep by him signs it and we're done in fact both the second district and the third district have held that the court is able to impose goals and objectives on the treatment and while the court can't reach into the h s and say you're going to places person in this specific somebody the court can note that these types of things need to be treated the motion for reconsideration and the transcript of what transpired transpired that day underscores the fact that the july three order wasn't final at the mo of the state's motion turning then to the sons of my arguments just briefly this is the question not extend jurisdiction in this case in the public interest exception because the public interest exception has traditionally been limited to cases where there is a substantial liberty interest at stake because there  ory ruling that question isn't presented by this case a ploy or bieber is not a case on point with this issue the july three order was not a final order as it best represented the court's intention to place m jurisdiction of the matter you know if the supreme court has defined a final order as an order by which the court disassociate itself from a case well this court has never adopted that language and certainly the u s supreme court's rulings on finality are not controlling  oil law the concept of a court disassociate itself from a case is very much reflected in the three factors that we see in the hard case that terminates litigation between the parties that fixes the rights of the parties and the mixers the rights of the parties such that all th parties on this attempt twenty first or to that participate in twenty first order mr hernandez didn't know any details of his life he didn't know where he would live what kind of treatment he would receive whether both modalities or treatment he needed were going to be addressed by the plan but july three order may have given the state a good sense of what was to come but a good sense of what is the come is not sufficient to constitute a final order finally significantly more was needed to be there was needed to be in place before the july three or enforced there was no plan there was no place for mr and his live there was no job train set up there was no therapy set up there was no way that he could be released from custody absent the presentation and acceptance of that plan is like this aspect and be in a situation where they can file appeals and cross fields if they feel necessary there is nothing in the july three or that mr hand is going to appeal there's nothing there conversely september twenty first hernandez absolutely could feel conditions of that if he chose to for instance perhaps he would feel that one of the conditions that was placed against him was unconstitutional or was unduly burdensome or perhaps he could feel it's one of the conditions of his treatment wasn't being met you can appeal that the plan was a in absence of a conditional release he would have been referred remanded to the custody of the department human services so theoretically yes he could have appealed that i think that's unlikely but that yes you know and again both the second district and the third district have had cases where parties have made have commented on the plan that was presented in the original pays the second district order second district rule that the judge can impose rules and objectives in the party has the right to comment on the plan it's presented in people the rx wrote the third district noted that the party had the right to comment on their plan even after the commitment order was issued but during a periodic review session in people the rx wrote the committee had been revaluated as required by the statute during the course of that reevaluation the evaluator noted that the the man could receive better treatment a different facility and he came to the court asked be transferred to that facility the point of the mental sexually violent persons act falls under the mental health code the point of the mental health code is to help people get better to relieve them of the burden that the judgment places on them and to simultaneously protect the state at the same time if someone under the mental health code or the such a violent person zach is not receiving the treatment they need they should not only be encouraged to but they should be required to step up and say i'm not being the treatment i need i need something more and the state's argument that somehow mr hernand order which either orders confinement or dismissal the proceedings and release this underscores the fact that the court was concerned with an order which would disassociate itself from the case which would end the proceedings which would terminate argument the state can pull for this is for this is the poet is to pull a quote from first year out of context first here does mention the idea of a non final judgment however the case in the supreme court cites there is ruby  secretary of meat and if we look to the secretary of navy the holding of that case was the situation the actual situation that case was a circumstance where a complaint was dismissed with the cause of action was not  supreme court noted in ruby that even then the complaint had to have been dismissed in a manner that it could not be amended before it was appeal so the court did mention the ability of non final judgment to rule for ebay but it mentioned the appeal ability of non final judgments were which were themselves appealable it did not extend jurisdiction to a situation or to a case where the underlying judgment was in fact not appealable the supreme court was very clear when it said that in order rule for a two to operate it will operate only when a district court announces a decision that would be appealable if immediately followed by the entry of a written judgment this case is even factually on par with that in this case we had an order that was issued orally saying that the the respondent was to be placed on conditional release and setting the hearing date and he just as in a plan that oral ruling was contemporaneously recorded to right the state then filed a motion to reconsider would be in a member of the rules do that but what about right you know from a practical perspective the better practice is to wait until the d h has plans been presented in  setting aside from the context of this case we want to encourage all of you can sustain involved in the process always through the close of the process even if it's going to be a conclusion that they don't like because they can still minimize damages using this actually persons act as an example if the if a party stay involved they might recognise that a portion of treatment wasn't being recognised wasn't being addressed they might recognise that something was the wrong therapist been appointed they may recognise that the defendant in the case had the maturity of a twelve year old and  he shouldn't be given a cell phone that can dial any number he wants they can recognize things they can modify those plans they can dress the court and say your honor i know the da just did this but i think we might want to increase the most supervision of this person hands after the and they can have their dockings prepared and ready to file they can have those appeal or they could hand up instantly to the court and they can send something off to the district court saying we'd like to state enforcement of this judgment and in the resolution of the appeal finally as to the state's reasonable belief no case has ever turned on whether or not a party's belief there the order was final was or was not reasonable in the federal system the case of lazy oil noted that rule forty two operate only where there was a final decision issued without final judgment in cooper the court had the court's held that the appeal from a magistrate court's recommendation to the to the district court was not appealable even though the district court adopted that that recommendation verbatim and finally in hansen a prefers to hear case the seventh circuit show that the rule forty two had a very narrow very very specific application and that case wasn't even addressed let alone overturned by the by the court first year the second district holding was completely consistent with the text of rule three zero three is completely consistent with the text of rule for a it was completely consistent with a federal case law on the subject and therefore it should be affirmed before going decision from which the notice of appeal followed but the court held that because it was notice to both parties of the keel and that no prejudice was claimed or evident from the record and that because the remaining claims had been dealt with by the time that appeal reached the appellate court that they would retain jurisdiction and consider the notice of appeal to have matured on on the date of the final judgment and they didn't do that under forty two they did that saying that  nothing about for it to preclude them from from going even further but courts have have gone further than than the state seats here in ensuring that the merits of important cases are reached where eation approval of the conditional release plan following the dispositional order the court could have issued a judgment following its july third order saying defendant is to be conditionally release in fact the july third order did say defendant is to be conditionally released as the disposition so it did not simply order preparation of the plan in order that if an inch would've would've constituted a final judgment and the fact that the party has a right to comment on the terms of that conditional release doesn't change the finality of it first again recognizing it's not a perfect analogy to looking at the probation context by motion of the defendant or by a motion probation officer or by the court's own action terms of probation are subject to review even after final an appealable order has been issued in that case and in re d d the court's reasoning in holding in that case made clear that that the order directing the school district to pay was the final appeal order even though the terms were subject to modification because that was the order that adjudicated the rights that were at stake in the trial that was viewed as the final in a few a border  a final point related to the question of the need for guidance from this court and the public interest exception to the moon its doctrine it's been suggested that there's no conflict in this area and that this indeed the second district's opinion in this case would sort of serve as the guidance on should this court not not express its view on whether or not a commitment order even one that grants conditional release is final under excuse me district court decision below so we wouldn't have the guidance from the second district in place at that point and furthermore if the same were to rely on on the second district holding in  a fourth district case and wait until approval of the conditional release plan to follow the notice of appeal and at that point the fourth district in this court were to agree with the position that the state now takes the same might be prohibited or blocks from appealing that case by filing a late notice of appeal so until this court has provided clear instruction when when this this court is held that when when facts render an appeal moot prior to review by a higher court that because the party was deprived the opportunity the court recognized in this case the difficulty in preparing and the use of resources necessary in preparing conditional release plan particularly in the kind of case where the disposition of conditional release  response release and the risk where conditional leases been granted so erroneous lesa constitute abuse of discretion the risk of the public of allowing the conditional release of a responded under those circumstances is so high that the safer practice of allowing the state to state or seedings before the plan is prepared both for efficiency and for the public safety is is preferable  inclusion on earth the trial court here discharged a sexually violent person even though the evidence overwhelmingly established that requires special treatment and that error should not have evaded review in this case people argue that the section