and so the addition of that term is three years that he's not and if i used it much it has not made clear applies to his life and i think it's it's an uncommon perception that when you negotiate a sentence that you sort of everything's up for grabs the way that your sentence and even it would not be unreasonable for him to necessarily think that for a supervised release  even though we as lawyers we as judges no case but looking at it as an ordinary person is states particularly a seventeen year old with no prior adult conviction is it would be reasonable for the ordinary person and his circumstances really and even just an adult circumstance is not an attorney does not judge would not understand necessarily that well some of this is cast as possible that some that we're really looking for is that the defendant is biased with some reasonable leverage that mandatory supervised release is going to be part stern and in somebody in the defendant's circumstances here even ordinary dogs with not understanding the single use of the word or even the sentence in isolation means that made for a supervised release definitely will attach particularly when in the context of the the possible six years by this mandatory supervised release especially when there's no other mention of it anywhere else in the here i don't think ordinary and ordinary would be great if that happened please down below but that's not we're not saying that the ideal has to be what's required to  you have that and then you have the judge say two pages later that in this situation parties have agreed this twenty years i think that sets out to the defendant and reinforces to him that he's got a special deal that he's reached and when they're talking about that there's no indication that maybe for a supervised release as i did heard of that and so i think that's worse than yours because morris does not have anything along those lines  court recognizing the trial courts are having some difficulty in employing that standard decided morris to to clarify exactly what needed to be communicated to the defendant in order for substantial compliance to be satisfied and i might note just as an aside this case to kill or the plea was taken in two thousand and nine which was an entire year before this court decided morris in two thousand and ten so the judge here  the of the entire proceeding bringing those rules back to this case the conclusion that the court should reach is that the trial court complied substantially with rule four zero two you process and a fit of the bar way he was going to be able to escape a prison term here if i said that that sentence could run anywhere from twenty years to sixty years up to natural life and then he said and this is the key part of the transcript possible penalties what to do with this work this is where the rules for morris really come into play looking at the entire way and looking at this as objective la and looking at the rules that the precise formulas need not be employed and that the warnings need not be perfect we can see that this were possible just as easily could have referred to the potential require also you know being very there especially there not just that they actually there i think your honor that that is something that you particular judge could take into consideration but i should or should well i don't think that it's it should be the cases that we've also just discussed on the other side are more akin to the case here where the judge made clear even if he didn't quote link the m s r to the agreed upon sentence forth that morris reviewing these kinds of or i believe that andrew this is for history that make it clear that any period prison is going to require a person that's just taken from what happened here where a seventeen year old is trying to reason his way through ordinary person would understand that i mean in here before it was a possibility especially where the judge then sets out in this particular situation