the part of the plea agreement that you enter plea to these two cases these cases will be dismissed that's the agreement and so any part of that agreement is now going to be changed doesn't the state isn't  the proceedings i mean are we in a situation where basically for whatever reason the court did what your client wanted and now your client realizes that he should not ask for what he asked for and now wants another bite at the apple  ask for any relief on that case and explain to him what he would need to do if you want to seek relief on that i mean i kind of feel like in your grief you're asserting that the defendant basically asked for one thing in the or did all these he was given the opportunity to speak in court this was not a situation where he was shut down and couldn't express what he wanted or didn't want i think that conversation this rocket i'm here today david robinson our on behalf of the state piri miller prepared the briefs in this case and she's since retired and once i got this case several weeks ago life figured out why she did so one of the things that i try to do whenever i get a case is try to put myself in the shoes of the appellate court and try to determine typically in a case like this where state has no problem with jurisdiction over three or four v three we have no objection to that as outlined in our brief we do object to jurisdiction on the october thirtieth twenty fourteen order the court never characterize that if it could be your honor and i don't think it would be reversible error for this court to conclude that however no one ever mentions that the court never construed it that  never cited to portofino one and the idea that just because the substance of the motion could be construed as of course you know want to appeal i think in a case like this where we already have enough problems might create more issues than are necessary in collateral attacks any time you construe something as a post conviction or two fourteen zero one petition defendants have certain rights on those initial petitions and their standard becomes higher on subsequent petitions so i'm always has been in  the state certainly isn't going to take appeal way from that but i just want to point out i don't think it's necessarily good here because under the four fourteen zero five to six i think the issues as i lay them out of the merits as far as the state's  position is i think you could probably address that under that case number along with above question of whether it's a boy or supportable or order that that's an excellent point and this is something that justice turner actually addressed in a case called people versus gregory two thousand and ten i believe it was and this is what justice turner wrote if one judgment is one entered by a court one without jurisdiction or two that exceeded its jurisdiction by entering an order beyond its inherent power we know improper admonishments themselves do not receive an improper admonished once themselves or not render a defendant's conviction or sentence void i've never seen a case where it does mean does exist i've never seen a case where a trial judge looked at a charging instrument in the police contacts and said because a a charging instrument was somehow defective despite all the that it then it later gets before clean pleading guilty vacates a judgement that's problematic i that this was actually one of those situations have a civil od the so i said was sort of a bad hair day for judge clem i think it was so odd that i thought maybe oh maybe i'm wrong about that he seems so in fact about this below that i had to do some research to make sure that i was wrong about my initial instinct  of the gregory decision well i'm not sure i think it was two thousand and i can get back to you about that you are sorry don't have it right in front of me but i don't think that matters if it and here's why this is not a state's appeal we're not and this is going to go into why i said what i said at the beginning which is i try to approach this as if i was at your place and and what i would do if i was on the appellate court here i'm not sure were fully negotiated and in extra ghibli intertwine i didn't make up that phrase that's what we argued below so i did not feel comfortable in our briefing and certainly not here today represented to this court that  somehow we would make some argument that these things should be severed we argue from the jump that these were inextricably intertwined and frankly i think the state attorney's office was exactly right on this case from the beginning and i think judge clam erred now the question is where do we go from there to put it another way the dismissal of the remaining counts were elements of both plea agreements we argued that from the beginning the state's attorney's office that our file shows that this was all part and parcel of all these charges this was all one plea agreement so what this trial court ultimately did was improper as a matter of law as we've discussed i just don't think the court could do what it did but it was precisely as justice holder white points out what the defendant asked for there were a number of call of ways between the defendant personally and the trial judge the judge claim saying hey look you asked for this i'm giving it to the problem was really what he was asking poor louis to have his cake and eat it too and that's why it should have been balanced right away i think that's legal technical term but the problem was he was asking to have that reduce and even under cases like whitfield the supreme court's repeatedly said look we review plea agreements like contracts but it's even more than that because there is liberty interest at stake and so we go even beyond regular contract principle and i think you know drawing on that language from whitfield this is exactly the type think we've got in this case there is no way that that the court in any shape form or fashion could produce that sentence to a misdemeanor even if there are problems it was incumbent on the defendant to say hey look this is eighty eight due process problem or some grave injustice that i was convicted under these charges no claim in that regard was ever made what defendant ultimately did was he got with the him part he got what he wanted and then the is his inaccurate and i don't think it was inaccurate in a sinister way by any means i just think it was just an accurate and in the virtues by counsel they record of not reinstate those charges  court was just explaining to defended hey look if i give you this back in this veto you are just know that all this is going to be back on the table and they can recharge you now fear radically is sort of a legal theoretical principle that's all true but i actually think it's a matter of law it's incorrect in this case because it was all one so if he was going to jettison the whole the entire plea that is if for some reason the judge found it involuntary or unknowing then the judge would have had to vacate both the that indeed go you all are and that's the point that the state was making below so again from my perspective i think this court can can do one of two things one is just  think he did really get what he asked for it think judge claim was wrong about that he was asking for something even more clever which was just to have a reduced and judge claim gave him more alternatively this court could remand to permit the defendant to get his entire police back although i think defense counsel has to have a link to discussion with them at that time about what that means particularly since at that time he was proceeding pro se someone needs to explain to him if you get what you want here here's what you get a trial on all these charges and this leads me to one of the notes i wanted to may which was that the relief requested by the defendant on appeal is not available bel aware of no supreme court rule or statute frankly i think there's that a constitutional provision against it based on separation of powers to remand a case and order the state to renegotiate a plea there are some cases that kind of use that language but essentially what those cases are same on close review is you can send it back so that they have the option of negotiating so that if you do send this back to have a judge plan clean up the record here and allow him to file what he wants to file and get this back on track prevent the state would not be opposed to that just because i never feel comfortable and i know the state's attorney and champaign county does not feel comfortable with someone serving time on a sentence or having something on a record that's not legally permissible even if he asked for your honor there are no question why can't this corps say that this order speed or order is not working and th and the supreme court would say this was not a state's appeal that would be my concern about that i think this court can do it i don't know ultimately if that's what the supreme court would say but that that's my fear and frankly that's why i'm not advocating that position i totally agree with your honor but i'm not advocating that because that was not the state