be written pre sentence investigation report can be waived when there is an agreed sentence there can be what i like to call a limited oral pre science investigation report presented to the court where the defendant's criminal history is given to the court and that includes the prior offenses committed by a defendant and his prior or her prior sentences the court then is required under the statute to make a finding as to the defendant's criminality and the prior sentences and the purpose of these requirements are it so that the court is fully informed as to the character of the defendant when he decides whether to accept the fully negotiated plea or to reject the fully negotiated plea it is a strict compliance statute in this case there was no stricken clients because the court was not informed of the find and sentence for his prior class one felony the first district in people versus he would essentially ruled that something such an error although not on the facts of this case but generally ruled that this statute does not apply to fully negotiated guilty pleas the premise for the court's reasoning and haywood is that when you have a fully negotiated guilty plea a defendant is not allo simply challenge the sentence because that will allow the the training to benefit from his bargain excuse me while unfairly holding the state to its end court should have known yes and this is why because if in this case defendant was sentenced to probation and the court known that the sentence was probation it may have thought the the sentence that was agreed but the courts have stated that they do not want to open a pandora's box of harmless error review in never once fifth district case cited in my brief the courts expressly stated that we do not that the court no there was no no challenge of that sort of in this case there is no waiver of the requirements under the p s i waive their will it's that it because the the requirement that the court be informed of the sentence prior criminal history and the sentences is for the benefit of the court so there is no waiver of the requirement of strict compliance with the statute and let me let me sort of present a a scenario that may give the court a different context the take this was a case where a written pre sentence investigation report would have been required not and says that the defendant had previously been that had previously been imposed on the defendant that would not be an adequate written pre sentence report why should the law be any different for an oral pre sentence report the prior sentences should be included in a written pre sentence report and should also it follows be included in all pre sentence  there still needs to be compliance so under rule six or d if the if counsel and his certificate of rights indicates that he reviewed the proceedings at the guilty plea or the sentence or that he consulted with the defendant about the guilty people seedings or the sentencing that although a miniscule error require so when we're dealing with strict compliance statutes or rules it's clear from the language of the supreme court that harmless error  is the requirement that the guilty plea be withdrawn a condition for us hearing the appeal you know your honor that is that has nothing to do with the remedy court for compliance with the p s a waiver provision so let's say that this court were to grant relief in this case this court would vacate the sentence and remand the case to the trial court where what do you think's going to happen on remand remand in this case the court will be informed that the find and was sentenced to probation for is part class one felony at that point the court has the choice of either accepting or rejecting the with your best guess of what it's going to do or the court might say it's not harsh enough we just don't know and again that opens the door the pandora's box of harmless error review that the supreme court has indicated it does not want to g the p s i i waiver statute does not encompass harmless error review in this case is remanded as i was mentioning that the court this court the sentence it would go back the correction and the the error would be corrected hopefully and if it's corrected then the court would be fully informed as to defendants history and character and then the court can make the knowing decision as to whether it will accept the plea that would say yes the court accept the plea then it accepts the plea but at least the court will be fully informed when he makes know again it could be beneficial because i mean is a again if there's a there we don't know but the court may decide to  but there are there are theoretical options that make it worse right yes i'm not in this situation but perhaps in other cases but in this case every man could only benefit t one hundred five years or something like that fifty five year sentence but he was forty five years old when he was sentenced it's a license if if we vacate the sentence  exactly and if on remand the judge after being fully informed of the friend and history decides that he will accept that the guilty plea then he then everything stands as it is right now but the court also has the option of refusing to accept the a great sentence and then the parties are restored to the status quo ante and start all over again but that is all based on grounds to cry foul again our discussion this shows why he would does not apply here because there is no the issue of withdrawing the guilty plea is the defendant is not asking to withdraw his guilty  defendant simply asking to be sentenced fairly in this case as he was sentenced fairly there will be no withdrawal of the guilty plea however if the judge agrees that the sentence was  touch the realm of withdrawing a guilty plea because again the defendant is not seeking to reduce the sentence while holding the state to its end of the bargain if the census too high or too low the remedy is not to increase or decrease the sentence the remedy is to allow the defendant to withdraw the guilty plea and restore the status quo ant that's what the case is addressing the remedies in the situation discussed so in the cases show that the purpose of the statute is for the benefit of the court it i not intended to allow the defendant to provide a loophole to defendants to somehow get their sentence lowered in the full in the goetia guilty plea context while holding the state to its bargain in this case thank you and in this case the bargain of the state the benefits of the state or the bargain the state made was that it dropped charges and agreed not to prosecute relatives of the defendant if the defendants  was guilty plea because due to the like a compliance with the p s a waiver statute the state would then be allowed to reinstate the dismissed charges and if he wants you to seek prosecution other people section five through one of the correction code states that a trial judges not have to order a p s i i where there's an agreed sentence provided there is finding as to the defend his criminal history which includes any previous sentence the section requires this court in pres hill that as long as the trial judge is aware of the defendant's criminal history the judge has complied with the statute and they accept the sensing agreement prez held that where the trial judge complies with the statute in imposes the exact sentence with the defendant is agreed to the defendant cannot challenge the sentence as being excessive here is part of the guilty plea the people agreed not to prosecute defendant on to the three murder counts or for aggravated cad kidnapping or for violation of an opi and he proceeded only on the felony murder charge based on aggravated kidnapping both of the people landed defendant waive only case that i'm aware of it's take it it it's still based on on on the motion to withdraw in a guilty plea that it's in the same realm because if the defendant doesn't make the arguments also is for instance the fifth district in evans talk about that section five three one is for the enlightenment of the trial judge is primarily concerned with making the judge aware of the dangerousness of pick a particular defend and the factual basis that the people provided in this case inform the trial judge of this particular defend as dangerous as it because they inform the judge that he had the defendant had to violate in order protection he forced his strange wife into a car and drove off with her in front of witnesses he shot her left her body in the car and then he attempted to commit suicide in the gun that he had had the the bullets matched the those found in his wife's body and therefore there things we could i think we while a strict compliance is definitely you know we absolutely are in agreement there's no way i can contest at but we also have of our supreme court  didn't a raise a sensing issue in his first appeal he didn't raise a sensing issue in his second motion to withdraw and he doesn't challenge the denial of a second motion to withdraw in his appeal so we had all these opportunities in the appeal motion withdraw to saying by talking like well there's no prejudice then we're not strictly complying with the statue if we took that he would approach which is an outlier that's that's like they would approach to make a difference or like apples and oranges they thought of this other thing when yes this is this their principles when you don't but the but then they're always if i may still mean interrupted that there are always exceptions to that also when the if you don't strictly comply with with giving the admonitions to a jury the four different principals in ask if they understand and accept you know that if the judge doesn't do that properly they're still avenues where the judge can be found to be in compliance even though that too is a strict compliance counsel is not saying that he actually did his job but he didn't look at the trial transcript didn't look at the sense and didn't look at the guilty plea if you don't have the word aunt you don't know that this counsel's actually gone back and done the job is supposed to do or she supposed to do in order to represent this did it defend it adequately in a guilty plea situation under six of forty so we have here a completely different situation where we have a record of would happened exactly we do know that there was an absolutely strict compliance because he didn't get the actual sentences that that came down we know it's a felony one so we know that max he could have gotten fifteen or in this case with a record and show  get probation i accept that the judge didn't know that that's correct i have him here if we were to go compliance rule right but i would i don't think it's a first impression because we have he might or has died of first impressions the wrong word but you're asking us to create another type of exception to this metaphor are right in line with haywood because that follows in the general principles of in your motion which are all you have to make all your your your issue might raise all these arguments reason rule i mean in the law five three one but i think that importance can be diminished by the judge knowing all the different criminal history in buy if comes down to which principle trumps the other in a sense where the judge gets all the information except the exact sentence given and the defendant fails to raise it in their motion to withdraw thank you we believe that in a sense would trump the strict compliance with giving the senses as long as the judge knows that the individual did have the convictions and in this case we also know that the he did not have a waiver or an enhanced or extended sentence so the judge knew that there weren't additional crimes that all could have been the hands to sentence in that they in a sense that would be true you know we did nor you would in our brief you know it's it's singers no prejudice based on the other factors here to say it's harmless errors maybe to be as it was we didn't argue that so i can't make that argument now on in margaret because you could argue in this kind of situation right yeah you know it's for opportunities to do so this isn't a forger situation it can be under the motion to withdraw principles yes this is just schmidt pointed out even constitutional violations which this is not can be forfeited when you don't raise them and then dissects exactly what happened in this case the defendant never raised it until now you know the questions  exactly younger yes yes and the lower courts are following the supreme court on this question the other point i would like to mention is that evidence take this matter under