next hear argument in the matter of umansky versus superintendent green sci and the attorney general can you agree that there's nothing to issue number one would be issue number three and that that is do you disagree with the assertion that it presented is nothing more than a as what do you make of this march to order that's that's what we're left with isn't it isn't that really the the last round in the prosecution of these cases y and you understand that under pennsylvania law which was not in effect when i was a pennsylvania common pleas court judge but in the mid ninety's pennsylvania law was changed to require a sentencing judge to send out that the sentence is to be consecutive that is the intention of the sentencing judge so this is actually language in the order that the law required the judge to include in the order because he intended to consecutive there's there's nothing about the reference to the earlier charge that would suggest it becomes a part of this judgment only that this judgment and the sentence imposed there in be consecutive to the sentence imposed in the earlier judgment says that petitioners convictions and his sentences in a particular case are all components of a single judgment so as a result any change to any of the components create a new with which would be on charges relating to changing vehicle identification numbers so as a result at the conclusion that that pulmonary hearing his conspiracy charge was changed to conspiracy receiving stolen property as are is reflected in the  grant transcript and the common pleas docket when it was time to instruct the jury however the trial court did not instruct the jury on conspiracy receiving stolen property but rather on conspiracy dealing vehicles with removed or es it as conspiracy to deal in vehicles with pasta five identification numbers slash theft and receiving stolen property is the same is that while it's true that the information does define or does identify the charge in this way the commonwealth admit up so there is nothing in the poem you're hearing transcript and again going back to that they didn't transcribe everything not only that most of the time at least back in those days there wasn't even a court reporter the transcript prepared  that talks about the conspiracy charge and makes no mention of the aft with relation to that charge and further it while the trial court gave no jury instructions with respect to either receiving stolen property or theft or rather instructed only as to dealing equals with falsified identification numbers it's interesting this is an issue he purportedly discovered on his own that hearing correct honor so you're saying it because he missed that opportunity but he gets another opportunity because he's convicted again on the retrial on the bronco again i'm going by the majority interpretation but i would point out that i'm this circuit has got a lot of that majority interpretation in non presidential decisions the main one is the only brown one more question before we hear from  adversary i am unable to find in the record were in anything i have looked at that substantiates the suggestion that there's some governs the prosecution going forward similarly though certainly differently constitutionally from from an indictment so where is there a variance between what is set forth in the information and  aside there was no full complete trial the second time around but the entirety of the sentence was set aside correct and my whole point about mag would be that it really is just a particular application of an old principle of law the supreme court first set it back in one nine hundred thirty seven in burma versus united states which is the sentence is the judgment and that continues to be the law as recently as two thousand and seven berman was quoted in burton pears patterson so what we would suggest is in this instance you have two sentences therefore you have two judgments and it's really rather a simple application of simple law if the court had sent the case back for a new trial as well as a recent thing on all counts then we would be here in a completely different procedural posture but as it is the one nine hundred eighty seven correct and the statute itself begins with a person is guilty of theft if he and then deprive him of having it is you've got a criminal information if it's changed and yet the judge in doing the jury instruction i think only mentions and or theft once were and later on when it could have mentioned it did and didn't do so so you really mean to me those comments already conceded that the jury was incorrectly instructed don't know that i conceded that your honor i'm not sure when and the way that back in two thousand wasn't it i think that's correct but i'm not sure that the deputy attorney general handling the case back then fully understood that portion of the jury instruction says that you can be guilty of this number violation vehicle number violation and worth fact the judge already instructed the jury on receiving stolen property so he didn't repeat that instruction have the instruction here i do not have it with me right but i understand what you're saying what he did not do that he should have done was say by the way a party instructed you on the elements of receiving stolen property but he instructed them on that as far as count one lap because that's what the charge was here he talks only about conspiracy to do a vehicles with removed or falsified numbers at one point he says it or theft but then he goes down and he says here's what you need to have and he never talks about the fd again and i agree he should have said by the way the theft that we're talking about was what we said in count one you know it was so it it looks like and to be honest with you you're i don't have in front of me the closing arguments as well which could place that