and you say there was such an order there is your honor i have copies of it if i record it is not part of the instant record your honor it is a part of the record on appeal and appeal number eleven seventeen find it there the appeal was disposed of last year sometime so this court should siddons however the record does not show that the circuit court actually complied with this court's amended because the record doesn't indicate that decision was ever made on that initial petition on the merits well let me ask you something think today we've also entered an order we're going to enter an order regarding supplementing the record to see what if anything there are a transcript for march twenty but let me ask  morning are you going to tell us that the court ruled that this gunners i'm going to say that for a number of different reasons even if the court didn't rule august i think the record doesn't affirmatively show error record doesn't show that it's ruled that you're honest i believe that the the fact that the record doesn't show doesn't mean that they present world on the record have to every day isn't that how we decide things based on records that you know are these these appeals are really everything are then there's no such thing you can always file for success titian's he can claim innocence i mean he's been doing this for how many years now and they're  stop my question to you was is what is the why should we read man even if not just a limited green man or the circuit court that's been handling these provides for work a process for when the what the proceedings on the initial petition have been deficient in some fundamental respect goes out that is the success of petition the  has a ray of handling even if there was no error in this original remained the lawyer has a way to prove to fix this problem but the defendant when he files a successive petition is person in the whole world but there has to be an order something that he files the night and there was he filed if there was where is it because i can't  your honor with all due respect he filed an amended pictish and in november of two thousand and one he argued some of the claims in the original petition he argued some controversy with mr brown was actually it was a little bit before a little bit before the fine line goes that he files this petition and i have been and my notes come on record zero three zero three three many different records in this case at and in many coast conviction he says i will use my references the original appellate number originally signed so if you look for the volumes marked c l zero three three i'm sorry zero three zero three three seven pages see sixty four to see ninety eight is this a common law record yes ma'am all right so  three zero three three correct ok just sixty four to ninety eight ok that was executed on october twentieth of two thousand and one it was filed with the court on november first two thousand and one and there are two documents there it's called an amended post conviction petition and an amended petition in support for post and in support in support for a petition of post conviction really so two different documents he raises in these today in these two petitions all the claims that he raised in his original petition as well as some additional claims and at this point the mandate his issues and been continued from time to time correct now what we know is this and i just want to say there is absolutely no confusion caused by the fact that this court issued its mandate on the same day that the defendant filed another petition the circuit court has no idea continuances to review the claims we know from the records that she contacts the defendant she communicates with him by letter and by telephone we know that she concludes that there are no from an a c letter that she wrote when the defendant filed his first complaint against her in two thousand and two that she writes him a letter and she approaches him this is what's happening this let me ask you this question the that that when there was file them these petitions judge twelfth i believe he the third writes dismisses them on january thirty first of two thousand and two on march twelfth the defendant files mail files a motion for rehearing and for certain other really and the motion accuses judge waddles of not paying attention to the facts not realizing this is not news that a successive petition this is original petition this is the petition that was remanded this is the petition that where is was that's the ruling that's entered on march twentieth two thousand and two judge radha's denies his motion for a hearing so the defendant fires a notice of appeal which is late on two three two eight zero four zero three zero three three seven it's not clear on which ruling and does the defendant now knowing he knows this this record unequivocally i agree with you that there is no question that he's playing a game with the corps here with all of these things but that's besides the point no you know it is because the point is that we have to clear up the record there is if you're on it that the l six appeal that the record didn't reveal ready have been to this petition on two different occasions it has allowed the state a public defender's office to file a fairly brief indicating that there are no issues of appeal that there were no issues of our good will we are correct knowing all the well all the time that there was this issue of uncertainty as to right happened with the first ruling and the defendant in his petition for rehearing but elaborated mistake we can we can say that it it simply wasn't necessary because this court has been the review it is abundantly clear that even if there was never a ruling on the initial petition the defendant still can't get to the commissary because not his claims had any merit is defended has had it all the process to which he is still under the claims in his subsequent petition mirror all the claims in the first and we've already ruled and twice have said there weren't any here and what is the principle  well are we denied that really that's going to stop and if these proceedings he has the right he and there is no real principle that would you know prohibit the at it i well i don't i mean whether whether they will p six asshole or whether they have been raised before x you know something else but i don't see that you know what we do here days that make any difference and it really shouldn't but what difference i mean i don't think it should something and where we could take it the knowhow and apply that these principles there's no such thing well the issues before this court is did that circuit court correctly down by his motion for an order  food demonstrates that any error this is no different than a court ruling on the wrong basis it's well established that it's the result that's reached is the rep this court is concerned with wasn't the correct result not the reasoning that was used to get there so if this court is concerned that the issues in his first petition have never been properly rolled on you go back to the chain you were thirty first of two thousand and two ruling where perhaps for the wrong reasons but he reached the right result and the defendant could have if he had so chosen had this quote then conduct a good novella view of the issue see if whether or not that probably five as a simply not an appropriate road to squander the resources of this court the defendant issues on merit less i am happy to answer any other questions that this court may have but if there are no other was justifiably imposed upon this incorrigible defendant by a parent under the authority of and that was only later after under precedent which the supreme court has since rejected the defendant for the gruesome and brutal murders of the secure right one and sabrina somerville clearly well ted there is consecutive sentences and the people believe that they should be reinstated there are no further questions thank you very much through the first through the through the lens of the national tissue well you know there's no argument in your brief about that any of these errors or any of the complaints the lights in the initial  issue wasn't in the petition that issue in this court said we have the inherent authority to them to help compliance with their orders we can order we can remain the second for another sentencing hearing so it doesn't matter that the specific issue