believe you do the jurisdiction i want to make sure that you understand my my thoughts on this i filed an eight motion to dismiss based upon double jeopardy that motion deferred substantively from the third motion to dismiss that motion was based upon the trial or its denial of my seven motion to dismiss by seven of the motion to dismiss was based upon the allegation that in this instance there was no basis to go forward because the unadulterated facts were my client had no cocaine or other drugs in the system when this since it impacted our coach let me explain it again because said the procession when the court said no you don't need to have drugs in your system you simply have to have a light that it took out of the equation jurisdiction in this case first if you agree with my position that the eighth motion was substantively different i filed within thirty days second so you did ask the court to consider that as a motion to re the u s supreme court's decisions and people you know life versus by telling people versus them in my reply brief i hope those cases that lay under the jurisdictional issue because i think it's important both cases say the importance of having someone the opportunity to affect having the issue to a pulp or whether or not double jeopardy has been violated so again if you look at the message from the u s supreme court that it's a very very important broadly based upon the fact that there is no limitation in the supreme court rules the evidence from by the second district that i argued i believe was wrong i don't think there is that the fish your so obviously have the concept that if you believe there that's a very serious concern you have a situation where he was convicted iow driving too fast for conditions and the restrictions on the free form be contingent said to form a prosecution prosecutions for the same bat but the same conduct of the defendant may establish the commission of more than one offense which in this case it could underline to you are based upon their theory and the actual conviction for too fast for conditions speeding such offense if the several answers are no the proper prosecuting officer they must be prosecuted in a single prosecution if they are based on the same act well clearly if you look at the case matelot but what i really want you to think is this if you've got kids or grandkids and they smoke a joint and they tell him not to they do it anyway and you know thirty days later they get into an accident and th striking of the motion the same as a denial i don't see the defendant really making that claim but that is possible resolution of this issue that when something is stricken it's not considered on parents and the  became quite an issue in the market case which i laid on a different part of marker in my brief but marker does contain an explanation as to what happened in one nine hundred seventy seven when they changed the order of judgement language to final judgment and you don't need tolling if there's no thirty day limit so essentially marker implicitly does implicitly recognize that thirty days then it's on appeal subject to tolling of course for a timely motion reconsider granting a new trial the whole case is placed before the appellate courts well this is not the same situation when there is an elected tory appeal and the before in a criminal case the whole case is not being placed before the public court and this motion except perhaps to restart attempts to restart the time for taking a new lock to repeal so because he only has two options to either appeal timely under king or wait until final judgment there is no third option recognized by law and so he should not be permitted to appeal now and the appeal should be dismissed in its entirety i'm a move on to the merits of the issue double jeopardy i think quickly and mandatory to enter quickly with a case in which syces other crime i underline the traffic ticket is speeding and too fast for conditions well actually i think it was the film review speed to avoid colliding with any person or vehicle on or entering a highway that's a different crime to avoid colliding with any person or vehicle on are entering the highway well that's not going to happen every time you buy case in the states for you cited examples where the defendant perhaps either his proximate cause was either driving too slow stopping too quickly or standing on the highway or he might have collided with something that did not involve a person or vehicle on or entering a highway in fact aggravated to you i doesn't even require you to be on the highway  fairly but if you do appear on this court date for example in the church and her next parting judgement that was a possibility for what actually happened but at least in the record it's not clear as to what happened before thing now it's consistent should refer only to same elements and this is said these elements are not the same because there is an element of the traffic place which is not required for the aggravated to you why therefore they're not lesser crimes for so that's what i emphasize so if there is a drug or substance or compound resulting from the unlawful consumption of a controlled substance that qualifies well the legislature didn't say that you had to have a controlled of ok so therefore it should qualify whether or not it is self is a controlled substance but the state goes further and mission of schedule two controlled substance i'm so it just happens to be a metabolite of cocaine and cost of a section two controlled substance so even if the defense argument would be a doctor that there has to be controlled substance in the blood say why would we then include people who might have ingested drug up thirty days earlier and there's no permit issue there those people are no more in here applying to create an  the court tonight is seven motion the court in up a whole category of potential defendants those who weren't there but those who happened to have a status having consumed metabolized drug him much earlier point because i think it would be from the very beginning she's probably right and then be honest with you i think when i look at her free and then i look at her argument with respect to the issue of i whether or not this was a lesser