section one sixteen dash one of the code of criminal procedure the defendants admits that the appellate court cared for the simple reason that compliance with section one sixteen dash one of the code of criminal procedure is not a jurisdictional prerequisite to appeal rather jurisdiction in this case as in all cases is can has covered by this court's rule six zero six with which the defendant by the defendant therefore requests that this court reinstate his two appeals before the appellate court particularly given that in one of the cases the dissenting justices found that there were two issues that merited reversal because the substance of the cases were not reached by the  and because the facts are never the scots the procedural facts related strictly host trial in this case are extremely brief following jury verdicts in each of these cases the court scheduled sentencing hearing for more than thirty days after the jury issued its curtains at this stage it's customary for counsel to file a post trial motion for two reasons one more practical than the other the most practical reason is that if the motion for new trial is granted there's no need to see to the sentencing here the second and more important reason in which really guides the framework of this case is that the case law is very clear that in the absence of a motion for new trial the defendant risks the very substantial risk of having his issues deemed forfeited both in the trial court and in the appellate court and for that reason section one sixteen dash one requires the filing of a post from motion within thirty days provide an orderly limit but this court has never found that a failure to comply with that specific rule it constitutes forfeiture of jurisdiction rather its forfeiture of the issues jurisdiction has never before been tied to the rule one sixteen that won the most immediate examples are where a defendant fails to file a motion in writing but instead of does so orally and i believe it was enough in which this court found that there was still jurisdiction of the case and that the trial court had the right to either team those issues for pitted or as in this case find that those issues richard there are also instances you're days after the sentencing which constitutes the final judgment of the trial or the defendant in that way complied with the letter of moreover i would note that six zero six a says that the only jurisdictional prerequisite to an appeal is the timely filing of the nose of the deal within thirty days of the issuance of the final judgment or if a motion is directed against the judgment within thirty days of the disposition of that mode in this case the defendant filed his motion for new trial within thirty days of the sentence and in that fashion filed a motion directed suggested because following cady i believe that court and counsel in the lower courts tended to use revestive meant as a shorthand not so much for reverse meant because jurisdiction was never was so it's not a matter of read best in court with your respect reinvestment particularly in hover which was the case cited in the opening discussing years talked about instances where as here thing about bailey as it applies to this case is that the the motion in bailey came three years after sentence was imposed there was no discussion in bailey about timeliness and there was no mention of rule or i'm sorry section one it had come to somewhat symbolize was that when the trial court as here decides to not raise the jurisdictional bar of or picture then the court has in that way and i'll just say the term even though it is not accurate that's the court with the right to hear that issue there was no objection by either by the state in this case and the court clearly indicated when it was scheduling motions that  a motion for new trial was going to be filed after sentencing had already occurred in this way the court retained its own jurisdiction of the case which wasn't lost until more than thirty days after the disposition of the motion was filed against that so it is your position that as long as it's any motion is filed with wild mother still jurisdiction in the trial court it's sufficient that's correct that that constitutes a motion because this because the trial court still had jurisdiction to review any of the motions or determinations that it had made the the jurisdiction was never lost for terms of heel and one of the logical difficulties with finding otherwise would suggest first of all that the trial court still obviously had jurisdiction for sentencing but to suggest that it no longer had jurisdiction over anything else  contradicts the general position of this court that in all instances what we would prefer is for the trial court to be able to remedy any errors that are to fix in the states to review the  one sixteen dash one is read as stripping the court of that power thirty days after the verdict then we defeat the purpose of the rules that are intended to out of the court to manage its own case while still providing f clearly in bailey finale that he wasn't by his can because again that occurred more than three years and in this instance the defendant still could have filed a motion to reconsider the sentence in the state would have been able to complain that it had  things too long this delayed things no further than a motion to reconsider the sentence with and it's in part for that reason that we believe that there are some the logical or some logical instant consistencies that  because of some of the extenuating circumstance in this case as for the supervisory board we are and we requested that in the brief this court has exercised that with or in situations particularly in this case the defendant had no control over the motion that was being filed and and yet has lost what appears at least in one instance to be a marriage or his appeal that would have received a reversal from the dissenting justices in this case who went ahead to reach that issue and in those instances we believe that an exercise of the supervisory powers of the scores but we also believe that the the view of the plain language controls as as it was found in marker and would suggest that this pertains to the final judgment being the sentence and therefore the matter was i mean we also thin that that view that supports the findings of this court in cases such as bailey such as patrick in which it was found that a motion claiming ineffective assistance of counsel could be filed more than thirty days past the verdict and part of what that decision reflected is that the this court has never found the jurisdiction was lost or was at issue even though issues raised  is found to be lost it can still be restored by this court's rules and six zero six c working in conjunction with six zero six three and six zero six a reflects this court's standard policy of motion to reconsider sentence and that would extend the time what is the meaning of the language and you just final judgment this was this a motion against the final judgment or simply a motion for a new trial well the judgment isn't final until is so to that extent it's a motion against as has indicated the language is again referring to a judgment in the second part as opposed to the final judgment but it's our position that any motion filed within thirty days of the sentencing hearing constitutes a motion directed against so we just ignore the but it also allows the trial court so to reconsider rulings that have been made so in that way one sixteen that one helps preserve the trial or its ability to make its decisions and reconsider its decisions court still considers that issue on appeal there are instances where there is a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel and that again can be considered on he'll even if it wasn't raises typically isn't at the trial court  where reasonable doubt is raised that does not need to be preserved by this court's cases as as an issue in the post trial motion and can be considered on feel so we face the unusual prospect please the court counsel i'm assistant attorney general michael civil on behalf of the people the state of illinois yars this is not a case about section one sixteen does one or the ability of a trial court to consider a motion this is a case about themselves extended the notice of appeal deadline and again the appellate court correctly found if they did not six zero six b says that the motion must be timely filed in order to extend an order to feel that as a matter of defendant has not cited even a single case holding that untimely motion automatically extended the time to file a notice of appeal now he does cite a number of waiver cases cases that hold that the failure his appeal in any number of ways for example filing his nerves appeal within thirty days of judgment as we discussed in our brief there's about six different ways you can perfect so his waiver cases do not carry the water that he rule six or six p your honor you would have to file at least one timely motion either in motion for a new trial or a timely motion to reconsider sounds at least one of those i think that is what you would be required  defendant and only discussed the admonished and mannish in regarding a motion challenging his status the clearly there is evidence in the record that the motion for a new trial was discussed and commented upon by the trial did briefly discuss a motion for a new trial at the feb twenty seventh sense i think it's important to answer your question take a step back and remember this is a consolidated case so there's no allegation that in one of the cases any misleading statements  is that a misleading statement was made in the open titles case at the feb twenty seventh sense and there's a couple problems i believe with that argument first is i think it's been a little too before that's been waived was not raised earlier as to the facts your honor as i said the misleading statements allegedly occurred at the february twenty seven cents however as i think we all agree the motion for new trial was due on january second so as a matter of pure logic nothing that could have of which was a motion for a new trial the court said yeah actually asked that he wanted a public defender appointed to filed a motion for a new trial or said no whatever motion you want to file you need to get money so i don't think it's fair to say that thank you i will try to make my comments group but i do appreciate the opportunity to address this issue because i think that it's one that happens with some frequency and at the trial court level there are any of a number of reasons that the thirty day deadline doesn't necessarily get complied with that route in some instances it may be because there is a misunderstanding as to the import of the rule it may be that there are times when as the something just as in this case a gust of court in council may have had a different way of dealing with these and particularly given that the second trial started the day that the sentence was issued in the first case it's clear that this was kind of an ongoing pattern and to the extent th nothing was said during the second case about these guys ruling of post trial motions what you have to keep in mind is that at that stage the defendant had seen the first trial and the pattern that was developed there where the motions were heard after the sentencing hearing and there was never any indication that there was something wrong about that so you are the defendant had already been accustomed to that point then during the second trial to follow that as you see i agree with the state that absolutely this shortness in force at supreme court rules but section one sixteen dash one is not the supreme or rule it is a rule of the administrative convenience for the courts below in the trial court it is something that helps the court manage its dock et but the court should have at the trial level the absolute discretion to change its calendar to adjust if there were an illness or the attorney on the twenty ninth day if something happened with the heater on the twenty eighth day of the motion or sent on the timely fashion if it were a holiday schedule of the court said let's put this out for a longer time period the court should have the ability to do that and the court did that here and did it in a way that did not jeopardize the finality of the case  standard in an overly long fashion again counsel stated in an argument here a moment ago that had the defendant filed a motion to reconsider sentence then there would have been an issue here and the defendant would have gone on and appealed the case and there would be jurisdiction this was the late no longer than that motion would have delayed things and it's not a delay given the way that this court has structured the filing of the motions in the order that they should  defense counsel from complying with the co the code of criminal procedure requires that a motion made by a within thirty days and there's a very real risk that then the substantive issues that the and raises will not be considered by the trial court or will be found to be waived by the appellate court but that has nothing to do with jurisdiction but by having that same controlling factor the purposes of this court with a rule six zero six and the purpose of one sixteen that one can both be mad and work together to preserve the defendant's ability to appeal and preserve the trial court's right and ability to control its docket and to reconsider findings  jurisdiction has never been questioned when there was the late filing of a post trial of in fact to if the finding were that the notice of appeal had to be filed within thirty days of the