the defendant that a term of mandatory supervised release and a star will be added to his negotiated prison sentence some judges are not giving that admonition or they are phrasing they admonition oddly has to say something completely different and misleading my issue begins with the words spoken by the judge to jerome jackson and his skill to play hearings and the judge told jackson if this were handled by other than a plea agreement the law provides you could get anywhere from two to ten years in prison plus two years mandatory supervised release other possibilities include probation or conditional discharge not to exceed thirty months heriot can prison but not to exceed eighteen months and you could be fined up to twenty five thousand dollars that's the only mention of  i can impose these various things including m s r now that's nowhere close to informing the defendants that a term of then i saw or will be added to his negotiated prison in fact i would suggest that a reasonable person hearing that particular admonition would think that if the case were handled by a plea agreement the defendant's could avoid  and of course that's not the law and i saw our is automatically added to any prison sons whether it's through a plea agreement or otherwise now people versus whitfield is the most recent case or one of the most recent district the public court thanks that due process is satisfied and whitfield is in a political so long as the judge utters the phrase mandatory supervised release at any point prior to accepting the guilt this is why it's not moot and why it's not harmless also the four sentences here although concurrent with one another are consecutive to the sentence he was serving at the time he committed these offenses so these sentences a fact when he is released from prison when his m s r begins when his m s r ends well  was reading through the uniform code of corrections i found it not altogether clear if the state in a spree cites to a particular statute for exactly that proposition but that statute refers to another statute in the uniform code of corrections that refers to sentences imposed by another state's court or a district court and of course that doesn't have anything to do with with it but this case that's not the situation so near as i can tell he is on  are for his old case and for these new cases the n i saw our term for the old case was two years the m s r for the new case this case is one year so i can see why the state would think that the case is moot or harmless well the fact is that that over here and that's the only term in metamath m s r that he will ever serve he will not let me back up a little bit of the m s r terms are not consecutive they write the way they do the m s r with the consecutive sentences they add all of the sentences together for one sentence and then the m s r goes with the most serious crime that's certainly the state's argument there's statutory support for that that you may or may not disagree with that fair yes ok that is the state's argument if that's true and we three are we believe that's true i guess what counts not right isn't that correct right so there'd be no there would be no there'd be no prejudice to the defendant whatsoever that if this this is how this particular sentence i would suggest that that's not the case based on what i started to say in response to another justice question with the that the period of imprisonment right all right so we that that fact the fact that there consecutive doesn't change the the fact that he's only serving two years of m and that two years of m s r at least fits the robbery even if it doesn't fit anything else right there's no question as to the admonishments and the robbery no no i had to read the transcript from the robbery case  and the error the due process error was not harmless because these sentences prison sentences these prison sentences being punched secular have to the old prison sentence the robbery prison sentence and so under which feel most recently the defend that is entitled to the benefit of his bargain with the state and if he receives the whitfield style relief and has one year shaved off of his three year prison sentence the three year prison sentence becomes a two year prison sentence under that condition he would have gotten out of prison earlier this m s r would have started earlier and his m s r would and earlier started sooner and it will end sooner but would still be a two year period when you do you agree that we would not be appropriate for us to reduce the term of m s r yes in as a say of people versus whitfield is the the case in which this court is most recently said that that type of admission is required how the fourth district has said in this case and in others that due process is satisfied and whitfield is in a political you know so long as the judge utters that phrase mandatory supervised release at any point prior to accepting the plea and so far as the fourth district is concerned the context is unimportant and that kind of admonition is nowhere close to fulfilling the due process obligation i mean the most the fourth district says is well sure the admonition could have been clearer but it seems to adopt the attitude of close enough for government work now i ask this court to correct that attitude this is an important constitutional issue as this court has made clear and it's coming up again and again and it's so easy for the judge to give a proper admonition you know in the time required to mention m s r as part of some hypothetical the judge can inform the defendant that a term of then i saw will be added to the agreed upon prison sentence how long did it take me to say that so and by saying nothing more as in this case does not satisfy due process the judge needs to inform the defendant that a term of then a star will be added to the prison sentence to which he and the state agree good morning your honors erica seaborn from the attorney general's office on behalf of the people may place the court your honors there are several reasons why this court should uphold the dismissal of defendants post conviction petition and the first is that the case is years before the related to the robbery case under seven thirty i o c s five five eight forty two when consecutive sentences are served the department of corrections treats it as one single term of imprisonment but then the defendant has to serve the term of amazon for the most serious offense m s r terms don't aggregate if there are multiple convictions and they don't run concurrent to each other the only honest hard time that's being served here is one for conviction that anna has not challenge and that way the movement in this case is unusual normally first of all the defendant argues that this court should apply the public interest exception however the public interest exception as this court held in fell's act should be narrowly construed and requires a clear showing of each of three criteria three criteria are that the question at issue is of  substantial public nature and the second two which are problematic or that an authoritative determination is needed from this court for future guidance and that the circumstances are likely to occur we would argue that the defendant has not met the last two criteria in terms would argue that there seems to be a split between the fourth and fifth district appellate courts as to whether or not this type of admonishment satisfies due process but i don't think that the split is as severe as the defendant would make it out to be followed more of the fourth district style of analysis the first district in a case called people the marshal which i also moved to cite as additional authority recently also follows the fourth district's mode of analysis in that way the company case could be seen as more of an outli rather than a definitive split between two just states appellate courts so in that way it's not there's not been a clear showing that this court's authoritative guidance is needed in order to resolve this type of issue in terms of the third of the third criterion that the circumstances are likely to occur i would argue that the defendant has not made a clear showing here either in the reply brief the defendant gives numbers on the number of prisoners in the department of corrections and the average length of their stay but even he admits that he has no idea how many last two criteria the court should not apply the first public interest exception to the minister as to the second exception the court should not apply this one either the second exception is where the fun it would have to show that he has a reasonable expectation that he himself would be subject to the same action again and that the actuality is of such short duration that it cannot possibly be fully litigated prior to it so sation defendant hasn't made a showing of this either he will not be subject to the m s r term for his aggravated battery conviction because as i stated before he serving them a start term for the robbery and said even if this court decides to apply immunise exception it should still deny relief because any error in this case was harmless the defendant has not suffered any injury as a result of the admonitions that he received for his aggravated battery convictions because he's not going to serve that term of m s r and even if this court decides that the defendant was improperly admonished for those aggravated battery convictions he would still have to finish serving recognized that it could not shorten the term of mandatory supervised release as this court stated in with field and so the first sr tell at this day there is no sentence remaining for us to modify because it's been discharged only the m s r period remains because of that the first district ended up denying the defendant any relief because they said that there was simply no relief left to give that if this court should similarly hold that it cannot rector actively modify a defen sentence after he has already served at doing so would have the effect of shortening the term of mandatory supervised release that the defendant is now serving and it would be doubly inappropriate because that m s r term is related to a conviction that he has not challenge finally i'll address the merits of this case in whitfield this court held that substantial compliance with rule four zero two is sufficient to establish the process and we would argue that rule four zero two has been sufficiently complied with but even if this court holds that there was an first let me say that i have no objection to the state's motion to add authority second let me say in my reply brief i am not conceding that the issue is moot i certainly do address the issue of moving us as i thought that was something important something needed to be addressed and something that i'm sure the court will be thinking about but for the reasons that i stated i think it is not moot and this court can't grant can grant effects effective relief to cheer on jackson by shaving that one year off of his prison sentence it won't get him out of prison any sooner he already is out of prison he has been out for the past year but as a result of that relief his m s r term will and sooner than otherwise it's not a huge bit of relief for him it's not like  and i would say no you are not shortening the statutory period of an i saw are here essential a would be backdating the start of the m s r he would still be two years it would end is now scheduled to end but it would have started earlier than it in fact started as he should have been out of prison you know earlier and he in fact was released from prison only as a part of a hypothetical if this case were handled by other than a plea agreement to make sure that the courts know that that type of that management is not sufficiently clear and does not satisfy due process and the circuit courts really do need to inform the defendant of the simple fact that a term of that my sar will be added to the prison sentence imposed pursuant to the