petition it was put on the court docket as opposed conviction petition and it was a call up as opposed conviction titian for something like eighteen months more than that and then the state of illinois filed a motion to have the it was a post conviction petition and the title of this document didn't make any difference the law in the state of illinois is that the body of a document controls its nature n sandwich or it is not it's a post conviction petition who is recognised as a post conviction petition for eighteen months more than that and it was at the second stage of the post conviction process under the post conviction hearing act and court stated in people vs ball march two thousand and six quote at the second stage of the post conviction proceedings the petition may only be dismissed on the motion of the state as provided in section one twenty two dash yes i do versus was not only was a list of the hideous corpus petition it was titled captioned as such the case concluded on aug twelfth two thousand and nine when the court granted our motion under section two six fifteen conviction matters because it was post conviction of the actual conviction another is a scheduling order i believe that stock in the four fifty eight which says cases before this or for post conviction petition not only is it not identifying his cases simply that's a schedule there's no nothing in the record saying anybody who's there and that's the only place in the entirety of the record that in fact the words post conviction next to the word petition come had not filed from his convictions the complaint itself makes no mention of the post conviction act which is contrary to the post conviction x actually one twenty two dash one d which w under the post conviction that it does not assert courts are prejudiced in any manner which is the only way you can get around the success of the bar for success of post conviction oh surely doesn't race or dress the issue about which you have caught it because these issues have already never do not find it to be with now it's awkward frivolous or patent without merit because doing so would be and it would be absurd because fifteen years before he had raised the same he understood the court's order and asked if he could make it post conviction filing and in fact the post conviction appeal or bars a six fifty one c compliance and none was filed here that's not part of this record before the court because howie clerk's office dockets the case has no bearing on what the judicial court does in its pronouncements this court the trial court always considered it a hate the sport was never made any kind of express statement never it kind of rea then it would not benefit and indeed there's no place in the record that the plaintiffs cites that in fact the court actually does that we care of the station he simply says well there are all of these scheduling orders but he has nothing in the complaint that shows cause and prejudice which in fact he needs to show under hits me that there's nothing in this case that says there's a cost because these are all issues that have been raised previously and in fact there's nothing in this them to benefit here anyway it should be affirmed but it's important for the court to realize that this was never really characterized there's nothing in the record all plaintiff can show is citing a few schedule nothing of matters just a scheduling order that says post conviction and then later on a petition which is what the petitioner named only one place in the entirety of the record states that post conviction next to the word petition and that to schedule order hundred four seventy seven reset post conviction hearing or see for eighty three set for post conviction hearing orcus well the problem with that would be he would have to give the defendant notice as to what it expanded he's going to have to abide by by and i don't think there's any authority for him to do it at the same hearing you can't have the defendant chugging along for eighteen months  here saying if if he switched it back well that yes knowing that the duty would still be the same if you're going to change it so that it affects the defendant's final status we need to be told about it so we can have an opportunity to comply with ever the standards and here it's really important remember that the this dates argument is really the best argument in our favor they say it doesn't look like this so it can't be a baby if it doesn't look like that so it can't be a baby and it doesn't look like any of those things and  that that's the way i remember it was people first very that's the documents that i have but  right yes that i've been better than that and that was just a title the in and the argument is that what he called it just doesn't make any difference as to what it is