and that so you see even though the mandatory statutory matter they don't exist they don't exist unless they are imposed by the story so this the four hundred thirty dollars worth of fines that all the mandatory t that fine should have been imposed there is no reason that these sorts of errors could not be corrected by the trial court if the trial court had an opportunity to correct but due to all sorts of of circumstances beyond the trial courts control volume of cases problems with software which them particular day something i haven't had a coffee that morning but the law can change and someone not caught it in time these sorts of things can slip through the cracks especially because they're not the big ticket items going to be in the margins of the cases the vast majority of these are going to be and the stark terms finds it major executive wasn't u k tional long minimum sort of case which are problem if it's simply a search entry one of the counts received or somebody is that also all true if there was a mandatory assessment or find that was not use sometimes characterize it differently sometimes they'll say unlawful sentences my understanding is that that is only stat circum says that are unlawful under the applicable law rather than fine seem to slip through the cracks occasionally in the circumstance because the big ticket items the the years in prison that the large fines are things that people are attending to and that's why they haven't noticed responsibility to basically double check and thoroughly look at what the underlying order is so would they be maybe maybe not looking so you're just looking at the you said the  and not only i think the fact that we're talking about that the most is the reason why this needs to go through the judge normal rule making process and following the supreme court all three went through committee having public hearings because there are a m special edition only other issues with just making a rule here with the timing and everything that's been brought up you know something to be considered is whether or not making a rule like this would effectively a man rule six fifteen b which with that allows the state to increase sentences on appeal which the sport has routinely rejected as constitutional i that's something that needs to be considered the fact it is here in illinois for at least twenty five years the court has said strongly that a fine as part of the senate is a part of the sentence fines or hearing their punishment whether or not they are deemed sort of the throw away thing that nobody's considering they are in fact honest and they are part of the sentence and if the judge did not oppose them at the time the sentence going back later and getting them whether they're mandatory or not isn't increasing the sen of time and money that is spent on these issues however you know another issue to consider in the room making process is to what extent it might be useful for dollars in fines out and to the extent that right now when a judge i mean there are p c cases where judges waive any fines and fees because they think they can or  then but you know you turn around and you get a case where the the records of the first office reflect what the clerk imposed mandatory fines because they're mandatory so they impose them well the clerk just acted as a judge imposing or something for the legislature to consider and you know the stepping over to the issue about whether this is an order well printout from the clerk's office is the that is the court's record of what the judgment was and the state wants to make a lot of it has very vehemently framed this issue as being a clerical error in data entry and it is not this is the earth's record of what the judgment of the or was it we have never presented we don't assert that the printout from the first office isn't so in this case it is a part of the record but there would be every reason why i could have just asked the court to cheap judicial notice of the records of the circuit court because that is the clerk's duties to record the orders of here you know the state presents this argument that there they don't really exist and and that the defendant could just walk into the purpose office and pass the work to fix the border or fix the up on appeal doesn't waste any more judicial resources than what the state is already is suggesting with they are having a completely separate issue where you know so if i ha do i just then raise the reasonable doubt issue and then call the public defender and s else in the record and no reason for a defendant to appeal and the only thing was a clerical error well under current practice when all there is is a shield fine we file a brief arguing i don't want to take a position from my office you know it in terms of like what the rule might look like i can talk about something that indication to me in the second district they in the wake of all these fines and basically forces the court to review all of the things that it kind of falls and and it also notes which ones are mandatory and so the court can get it right first time and that's going to be working quite well and so that would be something that we think would be a good idea and under a new rule additionally on that form the judge has to sign off on it so we know in those cases that the judge imposed these lines and it's much easier in those cases to be able to thank you b concerned that if they point out of the court neglected to impose a hundred dollar fine that when the court then follows the legislative mandy who says that filing is doing so  search or is not an economical use of resources and particularly not when those resources are being taken from the constitutionally mandated review of ender's groups to assure that engine and its are receiving