requires he consulted with the defendant he examined the relevant portions of the record he amended the motion of necessary and he swore to all those things s and yes you know because unless the court wants to make a rule change retroactive you know you can do that but the most important thing is for the rule to say what it sets and but however the court the trial court has a chance to take a look at the certificate make sure that there aren't any errors so that it's not so that there is not a romance later for an erroneous six zero forty certificate but if the trial court doesn't do that then that the  which doesn't make sense because the rule of the court requires strict compliance with the girls so if it's part of the rule then there's going to be a real man in every case where the certificate is not filed before the hearing  rule if the court just says counsel you know counsel should do this before the hearing we would agree with that however we the most important thing is that there's not a reason and every time counsel doesn't buy all certificate smile or i mean if it doesn't make any difference it does make a difference your honor we when the certificate is filed that means the trial court so the purpose of six or fourteen more broadly is to ensure that the respondent presents all of his arguments to challenge the police or to challenge the sentence because if he doesn't do it at this stage then there wait and in a very difficult right now the purpose of the certification requirement is so that reviewing courts know every argument that defendant wanted to raise and every you know argument pretty well everything that every argument defendant wanted to raise was before the trial courts and we know that and we will know that in every case where counsel files that certificate the trial court did consider all the arguments that respondent wanted to raise and we know that counsel consulted with the respondent to make think trial court gets the benefit because counsel by certifying this we all know the trial court doesn't at the time it's considering the the hearing you know doesn't have the benefit of  certificate however we think they deal with it's file that yes correct or who are but in any case the trial court has the benefit of counsel actually having presented the arguments the all of the right arguments and we know that no reason to think that the hearing will be any different because counsel has already sworn that he presented everything and in the end made amendments to the motion necessary i understand what your big problem is with either an amended rule or through case law indicating that it would have to be filed instead of perfectly that would have to be found i mean when there are still be nice understand what you're saying you're saying ok well it's finally afterwards there is an appeal taken soon it wasn't playas with this it wasn't filed before it was mild afterwards you know ten minutes and whatever he had the hearing we know that it was certification is valid what is your big issue with us either amending the rule to indicate that it's mandated or in this case indicating going forward it's no longer preferable we think it should be filed during or before brief words are i was what if it wasn't for when there's going to remand in any case so so if there is no certificate file then the deadline doesn't matter if there's an error in the certificate and the deadline doesn't matter substantively different hearing and then it'll go back to the appellate court six nine months later than it otherwise would have and you think there was wisdom behind the use of the word yes your honor and it it may have been intentional or unintentional wisdom but yes and it is preferable and and a trial judge or even if in his own or her own self interest should should say hey by the way get this on file before the hearing so i can take a look at it so the prosecutor can take a look at it so you make sure you know everything sort of way so we don't have this hearing then have rea but by putting it into the rule we create a remedy that's useless and it's useless inexact and the only times when that when the deadline would matter or are you suggesting that we clarified surely by to you know rules are rules of procedure they are not just suggestions the violation of the rule is not something that's an income sequential matter it's not a useless gesture to send a case back if a certificate is in its filed  it or what do we send it back for it would go back under all these other cases that have gone back under similar circumstances for the opportunity for a shell to refile a motion to reconsider his disposition it goes back to that stage and then it goes through that process again but the certificate here we didn't challenge the certificate itself because it seems so clear undershirt only in jane's one but it should go back because it was late it was filed on the same day as the notice of appeal there was something wrong with that certificate the circuit court would have been deprived of jurisdiction because the notice of appeal was and you know the new appellate court would send it back i'm sorry and the court would send it back if there was something wrong if there was something wrong with the certificate yes is there something wrong with a certificate in this case in this case but let me back up the answer to that for just a second one of the reasons for having the trial court consider the certificate prior to or contemporaneously with the motion most posed disposition motion is so that the trial court can look at matters that perhaps maybe off the record your honor so that i'm sure it's like the third or fourth paragraph of surely they can look at those matters now we go to the certificate here consultation can go on at that point nothing the motion is filed what is he going to do say your honor i need ten minutes to go out and get my computer and redo this notion that's not going to happen it's a practical matter that it's not going to happen if the motion itself was file march nineteenth which is only two weeks after the disposition hearing how much consultation could have gone into it at that disposition hearing and how much review of the record could have gone on those are the issues that the certificate intent behind th i think it needs to be clear it's not a matter of trial to scour case law to find appropriate case like it was written in the state's brief you don't have to scour the case law to figure out what you're supposed to do  surely says that it's just preferable it's a very very strong preference if you will that it filed prior to or contemporaneously with the hearing and in this case it would allow h l two to have that opportunity file a new ey was given the opportunity to refile or to file a new motion to reconsider i don't i don't recall if that opportunity was taken but the opportunity was given and then it was on the second time around that the court your honor said you've already had your bi that's it that's it but this is our first time around for a job and it could be that mr i could they could appoint a new attorney they could come up with different issues that mr arkin did not see so it is an important step it is not a useless gesture it's not a futile gesture it provides that protection that the rules that are promulgated by this court and by our constitution that a person who is pleading guilty or or a juvenile who is admitting to an offense they are guaranteed their due process another because surely it surely is clear in my opinion if when you look at the oxford dictionary definition of show it the first definition is that it's an obligation it's not a suggestion it's not  maybe let's do this sometime in the future when a parent tells their kid to go clean their room and says you should go clean your room that kid knows they better get there but up to the roman claim that that's what this court did in  that if it if if we say if if we disagree with you on your proposition as to how strong surely was it still didn't mandated why doesn't the state win this case going forward the rules going to be ther at some time or this case would make sure really mandatory you know that the worried and surely would be more modest i think it's not only surely though it's james one in james one the court also had that language so you're talking about and surely to do that i think amending the rule itself would make it that much clearer but surely already did that and surely applies to this case and it should surely does say it should go back and use that word should sentence but it shows an importance of the word there you go other than that i think we have to also go back to what the reason for the certificate requirement it and i as i said before it is that there is a clear there present a clear record so that the public court can then look at the issues but it is primarily an act for the trial court practically speaking if the significant is filed after the hearing you have an attorney who goes into the clerk's office of the court with a stack of papers from multiple cases files them one by one what is the chance that the certificate itself is going to actually go back to that trial judge after the hearing is over so that the trial judge is going to look at it and guarantee that the rights have been held how are they going to consider things that are off the record when the people are no longer before them if there are no more questions we're asking that the second district  should still be remanded is because counsel has essentially relied on the certificate or misrepresented his consultation with respondent or some other situations for the other requirements of the rule anything of that nature so there's no reason to think that when the certificate is filed the more that the quarter or any record would ketch it is more likely to catch a defendant's counsel in a misstatement of and those misstatements should be rare if not nonexistent so ultimately this is about form over substance substance and there's there's no in less and less counselor misrepresented himself but even in those cases counsel can mis represent himself before the certificate or before the hearing or after they hear end's response suggests that this to an attorney researching this it's not clear from the face of the rule it's not clear to an attorney researching this whether surely or james two or both apply and that's why if this court decides that consider the word should as it would because counsel or because responses essentially suggesting that the that surely is language should be incorporated into the rule this court should read the word should as it would read it in a rule or saturate and it's tough to do that because it almost never appears in a rule or statute but it must mean something different than must and if it reads the natural reading of it is a strong suggestion that counsel should do this