just for the record i understand  ok thank you your honor and there were no my name is we are banned from the illinois attorney general's office on behalf of his the prosecution in this case sought mandamus relief from this court in order to correct unauthorized four year m s r term that was imposed upon defendant frank dileo when he pled guilty with no agreement on sentence to a class where felony violation of an order protection and ultimate really received a sentence of three throughout that order should direct the respondents or you were judged to amend the sentencing order to make sure that the m s r term complies with the statute which would increase it from one to four years defendant instead proposes that this court direct the judge to vacate the sentencing order in its entirety which would potentially create an opportunity for the judge to decrease the prison term to compensate for the need to increase the m s r now in that responsive brief defendant they're not otherwise discussed what that would need in practical terms and there is an important fact here that defendant has already discharged his prison term so what does that mean well in the reply brief petition or in time to address what we believe defend his position violation either number one seeks withdraw his guilty plea or number two the prison term can be shortened by the length of the unmentioned m s r now and formed the defendant only sought the latter relief and said i want my prison term short court said wait a minute that remedy is not available because your prison term has been discharged now in this motion to cite additional authority defendant in the motion said wait a minute that issue you sort of misunderstood what i was getting at and you want to provide this case people versus jackson from because your prison terms have been destroyed and this court was finding no the claim is not moot and pointed to a provision in the code of corrections which permits a criminal defendant potentially credit any excess time spent in prison prior to being it seems that the tension should be shifted to a different aspect of this case yes those two cases share the important factor the circumstance of the prison from being destroyed but the difference in and it's an important difference is that in both of those cases the defendant is increased he will have no it will claim under his facts he will have no claim that his guilty plea was rendered involuntary and he's not he's not even claiming that the sentencing judge should automatically decreases prison term he's saying maybe in his discretion he name and so what that means it is is that defendants promise that the sentencing judge which faction of prison term in light of the length of the m s r term is simply mistaken because they serve completely independent purposes and if this court were to endors prison term which turned out to be the parties that has discovered that their two terms have to be mandatory consecutive where there is a mandatory firing it does make sense for the sentencing judge consider those types of factors when time already served well i suppose i haven't done the actual calculation to know how it would play out because as defendant himself notes in the motion he's not saying we would all just pretend that this case where that is what the mandamus order specifically reads but again those are cases where the mistake discovery did concern the aggregate prison term that yes indeed if two sentences will have to now be served consecutive there is good reason for the  or so jury yes yes and that is true that is in light of the important fact is in term has been destroyed and there's longstanding precedent about how what the purposes of amazon and the purposes and how they are entirely independent of each other in fact we know from the record here this particular judge when the mistake was brought to his attention he simply beats the honest heart which is it going to happen that happened well it appears from the record that  is most familiar with these and as our terms and what they should be sent a letter to the state's attorney who then realise hoops we've all had the wrong m s r term it was brought to the judge's attention the day before he was set to be released from prison on  according to this defendant was there without counsel that is what this aggressive likes yes but but the judge was there was increased and he came in as a pro se and said wait a minute why why was this increase council was appointed at that point in the race for the litigated but all of this is to show and actually that this is a good transition for me to get to the second point from our brief which is whether there needs to be an adjustment how we are fees context but this case provides an additional reason for this court to consider whether the situation needs to be adjusted after all there has a very important for of course for many reasons not only was there the aggregation of the weight sentencing doctrine there's the important point that castleberry did so not out of a goal of curtailing correction of these mistakes but it order to bring illinois criminal law into line with the most current version of the illinois constitution and in line with illinois civil law which more precisely recognize that the term void only refers to judgments entered by courts lacking jurisdiction and this category of cases of words with  unauthorized sense it should not be boy and challengeable at any time and this court realized how making natural thing with greatly affect how the mechanism for correcting these errors and so pointed parties including the prosecution there's titian's for relief from judgment under section two fourteen zero one and there's post conviction chains now what we know about mandamus is it has to important characteristics that are helpful that number one the prosecution can use it as well as the defendant and number two i know this case i see the statute it should be four years on this five he entered in order if what the people are opposing here existed at the time a correction would have been legal after all here we are fourteen months later and throughout this whole process all of the parties have always agreed it should be four years and that the correction has not been made yet and that is some of the downsides of mandamus that certainly there is good reason that this court will see that a more deliberate pace given the nature of most disputed on the very narrow issue of what is the correct m s r term for this offense under these facts and if the sentencing judge and circuit court judge can make that correction on this by these problems will be addressed much more quickly and after all there is another aspect of mandamus that has a downside and is that that is that this court is dependent on the lead against to bring the appropriate supporting records this court is not otherwise familiar with these cases and so if this court has any question about any aspect of the case if there's any ambiguity really in its normal functioning the only stay this court can take is to order full briefing and argument which is what happened here but the circuit court judge the sentencing judge knows the case has the record and much more object to this court feels that there there is good reason to have a deliberate will making process and will recognize that even yesterday's argument shows that there are aspects of this that need perhaps make it more complicated than perhaps i'm making it sound that if this court thinks it should go through what will make an process that is perfectly acceptable to us feared merely taking this opportunity to say that the mandamus system is pretty good but there are ways to improve it and in these few years since we have seen the downside of mandamus in terms of the more deliberate case that this court is dependent on the records these kinds of issues show that take that mandamus idea ship to the circuit court so yes this court put it in its opinion create a new rule create this process but if you think it's better to go for the deliberate process that's fine as well and certainly the final piece does show some of more of the complication here potentially and i know it was discussed yesterday but just to be very quick about it what it does show is that for some reason in fines and fees it is the appellate court that has been bearing the weight of correcting these and it seems to be because  office who has picked up some of the slack to make sure that these mistakes are identifying but the appellate court is saying wait a minute why is it here so if this court environment makes the decision that castle there he says it should all be going through mandamus and all of those cases which are dozens and dozens of cases will it should be here or will simply go in practice which is all the more reason why it is the circuit court that is the best place for these corrections happen now because you and i only have a few more to review the sentencing decision to the sentencing order to determine whether or not it has thirty days certainly beef when the state could bring a flaw to the the attention of the court yes yes it would certainly be better decided that well we want these corrections to be made we're not going to put time constraints on it of course it's better that's caught in the first instance that one can understand and busy or maybe an amendment was just made that hasn't trickle every judge and every day i say these mistakes can happen and sometimes they can happen for criminal defendants dutchman's who it's not simply just on the states and so we also want these areas to be corrected for defendants benefit as well and so i know i'll be back for a bottle so i see my time is expired by the it's appropriate to impose fines and they're looking at a variety of different things in determining how much punishment does this person need and how much supervision do they were fire to achieve the ends of this work in punishing and the military for this particular facts so i think that the differences are less significant in this particular case i think also your honor that the circuit court looks to the state for information about what the parameters are at sentencing and it's the state's duty to ensure the server is properly formed when there  honor the actual parameters of the time limit to be imposed are something that i think would be an excellent subject for committee to take out there is an issue here i think with how how these you know perhaps a good a good rule could be crafted through that process however i think the fact that we're here today demonstrates that mandamus actually is a sufficient procedural magnetism for dealing with these types of problems form of relief and the reasons for requiring that clued that the state has the ability to exercise its discretion so it thinks that a sense in europe was so insignificant that it doesn't warrant this extraordinary something as fundamental as changing the period of commitment that an extraordinary former believe may very well be appropriate and that regardless the circuit court should be given the opportunity to tom you heard her say that yes you know what your response to that i would agree correct to change the sentence in this way to bring it in line of the statute and once in your judgment is entered once the correction is made a new directive field can flow from that judgment that would be limited to what is