judgments and orders within thirty days of its entry in this case the trial court had jurisdiction but will reconsider its denial of marcus's motion to reconsider because when the court on its own motion provided notice to both and support of the statement that the trial court has the discretion to reconsider that the nile of a motion to reconsider sentence written thirty days of that ruling and it likewise as the jurisdiction to do so even if a notice of appeal was filed after the original denial of the motion to reconsider sentence and the it is pages one eight sixteen eight seventeen better cited in support of that proposition and in looking at with and thirty days of the final disposition of the preceding post judgment motion seems like that would be supportive of your position but it's not the it's not cited in the brief is there something that limitations on the state's rights to appeal when a child court enters an order or judgment at during a time in which it lacks subject matter jurisdiction to do so that order is void and subject to be vacated by this court this court has  last point in which the child court had to do something there was september third two thousand and fourteen when they denied the first motion to reconsider a sentence which was i think the only  timely found in october third two thousand and fourteen which was thirty days later in the meantime this is when the interesting things happened but just looking at that the nose peel liberally construed refers to a conviction sentence and it was filed within thirty days as told because the sentencing was on july second two thousand and fourteen but there was a time we filed a motion reconsider sentence which was the night september third so thirty days after that but it seems that there was no revestive because the judgment which is twenty four year sentence state never read to to put that on the wayside they objected to the reduction in sentence they insisted on keeping its  motion is timely within the thirty days but prior to the filing of that subsequent motion that was a notice of appeal filed six zero six b would allow the trial court to strike that notice of appeal right i did this hypothetical to be timely the judgment is entered july second two thousand and fourteen it has to be made within thirty days of that now thirty days after apply second does it take us into october or it's september even so the point is if there had been a seat for example if if after receiving this letter from judge lad the defendant filed a new motion to reconsider sense it's still not timely because it's a successive post judgment motion he already filed one after the july second judgement and even if there were it would have been quote timely as required by the rule to make it a nobody but the court has basically reconsidering the deny on the motion to reconsider so on september third women  are denied the motion to reconsider is it your position that the court lost jurisdiction thirty days after that or as soon as the notice of appeal was filed or right your honor the rule is thirty days after sixty nine which is doesn't apply under rule six twelve it's not listed as applying to handle cases rule three sixty nine attentional it could give a trial court in the civil case jurisdiction back without  understand what could have been found differently what was not done but it's simply unfortunate for the defendant's position that it was not done properly and that and that way that would have preserved the jurisdiction for the  aren't there some pieces for example people be rich and i don't think in one side there which also cites pieces that relies on say that what i've just explained to  been untimely is that what you were saying no i don't think if it was happening within thirty days i think us which i was careful to do is to call this back in a hurry to get it done in thirty days within thirty days and one of the september third timely because the jurisdiction doesn't automatically divest until thirty days after that september third day but essentially it was the notice peel that was valid it was not in the lobby and it did die because your station instanter and it never came back in the mandate didn't come back and some sort of victim saying it's over case says that thereby restoring jurisdiction in that court and i don't think that's really a precedent for this court to say that any mandate automatically we best jurisdiction in the circuit court within thirty days yeah i understand that and i just so think that mccluskey is the precedent for that sort of notion that the jurisdiction would somehow i do medically returned without it being included in the mandate because a court after an appeal has authority only to act in accordance with the instructions or limits of that mandate and specially here we don't even have a mandate remained in it so we don't even know what sort of forty the trial court would have other than the continuing authority to correct nine substantial manners of inadvertence or mistake which this is certainly not a matter of something like trivial that can be corrected even after the trial court loses general subject matter jurisdiction so therefore the  to reconsider its rulings does not help the defendant and just very quickly about the plane air argument the defense has a burden of showing clear obvious error and consideration of what he considers to be an element of the offense it has to be an aggravation it doesn't just have to say the trial court considered an element of this crime because obviously the judge's concern is considering the elements of the crime in determining how the sense of defend to this not being an actual gun just simply being the fact that the defendant did something that indicated by his actions that he was armed with a firearm and of course the trial court can i maybe did consider in aggravation that pointing a apparent gun at someone's head is aggravation now that's ok i give a shit because that's not inherent in the crime the judge can consider the nature and extent of elements of the crime in considering that it's proper aggravation so when ian punnett someone is a lot worse than just simply indicating by act by words or actions that one is armed and so that's proper aggravation for that reason defense not entitle to a new sense of hearing and you know the questions you not include a specific the man directing the trial court to reconsider its denial of marx's motion to reconsider that was because the trial question and one day before district via oath sad that that was exactly what it intended to do especially considering that the tough words discretion in sentencing marcus ranged from port four years to thirty years so the trial court in noticing that the codefendant had agreed to negotiate a plea of guilty for the exact same aggravated