agreement namely to accept a criminal conviction for attempted murder and to save a fifteen year prison sentence this court has long held that outside of due process concerns not a political here contract principles govern plea agreements and the agreement and the terms of bad agreement were quite clear the people would bring the attempted murder charge and dismiss the first degree murder charges and agree to a fifteen year prison sentence the  and then for the first time an appeal from the dismissal was post conviction petition he argued that the sentence was void because the trial question here in the original plea did not have a separate hearing pursuant to a provision of the juvenile court act  and should be treated and enforced as such and second that recognizes the importance of plea bargaining in the criminal justice system it is a tool that is vital to both the people as well as promote defendants and to the court system and a plea agreement or sentence being void as were hit by statute in every case that a statute a bit of sense a spirit of i bought printed by statute there is a specific statute which delineates a certain course of action a sentence and the parties did not the parties and the court did not abide by that statute that directive could be to sentence defendants between a certain amount of years let's say between six and thirty years and the defendant gets  that the defendant a juvenile at the time could not waive that right that does not mean that some subsequent time later after years have passed that at the equitable principle of a stop will would not apply to two petitioner and in this would have been more says substantial as part of the plea the people chopped first degree murder charges against him another which just petitioner avoided trial as an adult for first degree murder that is a substantial benefit indeed and indeed the hearing could not have provided any positive result for petitioner if there had been such a hearing and they had found that the petition indeed would not be so could not be since as an adult under this particular provision the people some simply would have reinstated exactly as written and two or two petition would have been sent back and been tried for first degree murder or pled guilty to first degree murder which carries a minimum sentence of twenty years and so there was no proper positive outcome of the hearing for is outside the actual statutory interpretation is stop or principle would hold that whatever the statute said petitioner should now be a stop from arguing that it violated the statute because he accepted the benefits with respect to our second argument  maintains that in the first instance a a juvenile defendant who is convicted or who pleads guilty to attempted first degree murder that if the state happen if at some later point the issue becomes that the plea agreement was was prohibited by statute and the remedy so that should take place is that we should go back to the point of the  right and the question is if if that plea agreement under which the charges were dismissed is is void then what should happen and the principle is that hardie's should not be allowed to keep the benefits of their  issue here is not that the minor was somehow unaware of the of his rights and this caused a result that he would otherwise have avoided and if that were the case we might have a due process issue and we might have a due process issue that the minor could not have entered into the contract well if that's the case then again that the parties should be returned to the point prior to where the contract was entered into the state is not asking the and the people are not asking to maintain any benefit of the contract assuming that the treatment is void the remedy would just be simply to go back to the point before the preakness and i'm aware of no case which holds that that principle which has been widely applied  plea agreement so the parties would agree they were to dismiss the charges and to have a hearing at which point part of the plea agreement would be that they would request a hearing to determine whether the juvenile at that hearing either party both parties would be in agreement both parties would say yes the juvenile could be sentenced and or the unify court of corrections because the criminal defendant juvenile would want to go forward with the pleadings and so although there would be a hearing and so the parties nique none of the parties would stand to benefit by the by the pre commitment so in this case why your honor might be right that the states that the people dropped the ball in other words the people should have asked for hearing neither side would a particularly benefit from a hearing and if anything it created a benefit to petition it because the only result of such a hearing would have been bad for him he could only have lost if he'd gone to the hearing either it would have been the status quo or he wouldn't and the plea would have been gone forward on and effectuated or he would have had murder charges against him to a crime that he had confessed he had committed  statute and due process provides all the protection necessary for a minor again d d the minor in this case had all the we were quiet minutes under due process for a minor in his position he had counsel he talked to his parents there was he had the full everything that was required under due process and the remedy of voiding to please him and returning the prize the status quo ante would in no way negatively impact analyzes whether it's whether a plea agreement to our senses void one of the things that looks at is that one of the the primary thing that looks at is whether the procedural requirement which one i read in that case is mandatory or directory and the way determines whether one of the prime ways of determining whether it's mandatory is whether there's a specific with assault from the lack of following the procedure outlined in the statute so the fact that there is a  specific result a specific result in the statute only leads to the conclusion that it might be void that's inherent in the question of whether it's void if that does not come back later to make a second as a not go back and say well the statute says you must be subjected you must have a criminal conviction between six and thirty years so we're giving you x years the court says no if the the agreement is void because it didn't follow the statute then we undo the plea we under the human and we undo the consequences as long as an essential element of the plea must be negated old at this time the juvenile court treats juveniles different than it treats adults there's a reason for that the statute was set up to protect juveniles and treat them differently  juveniles this man was not an adult at this time the juvenile court act is very specific the state can use a lot of my transfer provisions but if after a plea or a trial it turns out it's not one of those stature and one of those crimes it's very specific what happens not just very specifically the police not invalidate the state gun has a right to request hearing within ten days to having sons in adult court if he does not do that the court must must proceed in the juvenile court period rb what we've been doing here  they drop the ball there's no doubt about it the statute is clear this is a juvenile court act we deal with juveniles differently than we deal with adults there's all kinds of reasons for that it's pretty clear here the juvenile  similar to people versus wade well i would say no because we have a step this says what happens when this doesn't when this occurs the second point is why is the fifteen year old juvenile at fault here i mean there's nothing wrong with  case perhaps that's the reason why the state with attempted murder the only reason that this plea is invalid is because the state didn't file the statute not this fifteen year old juvenile the fifteen zero juvenile as as you point out earlier can't even enter into a contract he can't drive a car he's supposed to be the one to look at the statute and say oh wait a minute i'm and that's another point he was entitled to a hearing there's no is why is this different people but sure i beg to differ it was an option all stay had to do is request the harry now the judge could have ruled that well no we're going to keep them in juvenile court but the judge could go and the court in the state of almost a slam dunk w that no he's going to adult court there's nothing wrong with this plea agreement unlike that case where the person could not get probation it's totally different all these cases cited by the state there aren't any cases a to talk about a juvenile or i don't see how you can say a fifteen year old minor is held to the same standard as the state when you have status as a state must do some counsel on that issue and that issue he was represented by counsel and he was wrong and it wasn't the fifteen year old that the court was dealing with it was experience who he's doing well in theory that's correct trauma but again this is a juvenile court act and we treat juveniles differently you know the stay keeps hammering away at this agreement that mr king made and he did everything he was supposed to do under the agreement the only reason this comes up seven or eight layers layers he files a post convention petition that had nothing to do with this agreement and he'd still be this never would have come to light after that you know is it fair to this minor for going talk about activities is it fair to him that no one told him he had mean it would be well you are if you want to talk about laying in the weeds you could just as easily make the arguments the state laid in the ways because they're worried about a judge perhaps giving this guy juvenile sentencing and they knew perfectly well about the really is for the protection for the juvenile that he did not receive i mean perhaps it is hard for me to imagine a defense attorney doing this deliberately i mean king went off to adult prison and he had a chance for his client to perhaps go to juvenile detention teles twenty one following up on that obviously the plea agreement was for fifteen years it wasn't or juvenile adjudication which would indicate his age twenty one so there would not have been a plea agreement and then the clock here at the juvenile would have been still facing murder charges well and i totally disagree with that if if he pleads guilty to attempt murder through the proceedings the proper procedure you believe the state is bound by the plea without the fifteen years at that point if it turns out that the state requests the hearing and he goes to juvenile court i don't see how this they can reinstate murder charges i just don't trial judge refused to allow sentencing under the code of the criminal code isn't that rejecting the plea agreement which is fifteen years well can a judge do that in any polygamy you know yes and if it's rejected then you're back to square one or you know well the terms are may have been rejected but the pleading right is mine it was a plead guilty to a top murder and he did argue do you wish to testify against one of his co defendants which he did you know you can only do this statement offense can only do a plea agreement to the point that we say this is what we want is what will plead guilty this is what the senate will be but it's up to the judge and turman at all play a game and does a say ok this is what we want to do but again if the player agreement is rejected  are you saying that the defendant in a criminal cases still pled guilty even though the lead agreement is rejected will that work against the defendants also in the future an adult defendant but we have the juvenile court here this is the juvenile case that has a specific act that deals with juveniles and it has a specific act this is of this exact situation that is if the trial judge did was presented with the he would not be entitled to this mean they do or that's correct it happens all the time or was that a benefit that the minor hand because because they gave him a break and for some reason or other  attorney drop a murder go tot murder in my experience there must have been some reason for that had nothing to do with down the line it had everything to do with i would think because he testified against somebody else i mean and if you mean if he was an adult and he was charged with murder it's hard for me to imagine that this this defendant wasn't a parent and my my thought is and it's just what effect is this going to have on the proceedings in juvenile court if we rule this way to the state's willingness to leniently because they're juveniles you know they the statute says a judge should step then you just don't say we go to murder we drop attempt murder yet fifteen years case closed the judge has an interest in this case and the  something about the collateral stoppel it's not fair to the state but it is fair to the state because the state was on the mussed up they dropped the ball something i thought that's what the state argued that the only way that we win we being the state is under equity principles because we can't follow we can't win on falling statues we didn't follow stanching you know what could be more important than the juvenile court at dealing with court now first of all the petition in this case keeps talking up protecting juveniles but if the rule is as he describes juveniles will not be protected this particular juvenile will get off testify in open court that he had dissipated and committing smarter so there's no question that he received an incredible benefits in this case now if this quite were to hold that juveniles are not subject to all rules regarding then it is true that this particular juvenile who committed the murder will get off easier than he otherwise would have it is not true that juveniles should be protected what will happen is that essentially his rule is as follows possible way that the parties in this case would not be returned to the status quo ante that would have to be the rule because juveniles a juvenile he or she is not subject to any rules regarding clique means and what will happen in that case there w prohibited by statute there's a specific statute dealing with the situation so for instance in this case as a physician or keeps discussing it there's a specific act that deals with juveniles and it deals with the juvenile proceedings that should happen any time there but in other situations there are specific provisions dealing with a specific subset of people so for instance a  by statute might say anyone who is can who has been convicted of a felony is no is not eligible for probation for probation and a subsequent if subsequently found guilty of a felony imprisonment now we again there's a basis there's a specific situation and there's a specific statute and the statute makes clear what should happen and that's the question about whether the sentence is void or times the question then is not that  es not answer the question of then what should happen if the plea is void because the plea can only essentially be void if the statute has a very specific situation and a specific result that was not followed so that so when that happens the statute the plea becomes a void the sentence is void and then the whole new question is will watch it happen in the case of a plea agreement the answer is clear what should happen is the parties should be returned to the status quo ante the parties should be  the defendant would not be here they would not be able to do permit they're treated differently is the statute requires knowing and it i don't believe that's right there would be no this this not be bound by the plea if he wants to plead not guilty to any charges he would be free to and he would not be sensed sentenced under the unified code of corrections and last he was found guilty of first degree murder or if you are found guilty of attempt in court prior to the previous one one of the other murders pled guilty there's no testament testimony required one of the other murders went to trial petitioner testified again this was before the plea not pursuant to the plea agreement it might be the case that because petitioner had done this the people decided to show particular leniency in this case but that was not a benefit a plea and indeed your honor the state if the if the petitioner had been charged with attempted murder and first degree murder the jury verdict comes back not guilty on the murder guilty on the temperature that and then there's no hearing and the act would act would if there is a conviction and a jury trial there's simply no issue of returning to the status quo ante because the it's a matter of returning to the time of the plea in your head patheticall the state might have the people might have made an oversight and not going forward on this hearing or indeed the people and the courts and and theoretically the defendant too did not raise this at the time and so you would not be returning there defendant pled guilty to a misdemeanor charge in exchange for the dismissal of the felony charge but this court said when the plea was undone this court said well we have to go back to the point of the plea and we can reinstate the charges if it had been a jury trial and the jury had found the defendant not guilty of a felony charge there would have been no issue because there would have been a jury finding in this case there was no jury finding with respect to innocence or not being not guilty as to the the ten murder charge and again in this case the state was not worried about the matter being going to