court having had an opportunity consider the merits of harish to take a step in the opposite direction whatever you want to call that well let me ask you this question to you the funny raises a good point in his brief that this problem to the degree it's not as though the general assembly was a finally you know you tell a court clarify our intent you know now we realize that this is a problem we have to pass this legislation it was all this is what we mean by work folk been taken out of the normal room where you have freedom put into a correctional facility or county jail and so from yes from one state point there was only one of the end of incarceration but in the technical sense you were incarcerated multiple times state presented a typical six three or three percent of his case to the grand jury and there was no he wants to it there was no flash there was nothing misleading about it it was this defense wasn't that big vote for multiple reasons one of them zip yes administrative yes yes no i think that is the that was the interpretation of the vehicle code that everybody had prior hair which is why i think terrorism is all going going back for  effect if any change the word revocation it ducted into a reasonable construction of the statute and indeed all that ever considering the evils that the statute was designed to remedy i think whenever obviously when we look at statute there's t only look to see whether or not the defendant was driving l allegations defendant was driving on a particular date in a particular place to stand which friend and i did at that time license was revoked i think you'd also whether you have properly alleged a higher class suit your position is you do have to allege steps but not but the question is what is the four corners of a motion to dismiss is that it are you saying the defendant if he's bringing a motion be in terms of the defendant not receiving proper notice whether or not he was prejudiced by that i think the defendant who's admonished that he could potentially receive a class to accept whatever the reason this he doesn't get the class to get something lower that as long as it's lower than what he was a the legislature has in the new version of three or three has adopted the reasoning and your sense justice for cats that there is certainly are cations they also happened that may have been what the state would begin leaved but he later determined it was later discovered after harris came out but that wasn't an accurate statement of the law and no one is arguing that state did this deliberately or intentionally but the fact of the matter is this was inaccurate information and i believe that if the argument that this was inaccurate was not made in bad taste because with phenology parritch we could argue based on the face of the indictment however the amendments the legislature made to deify indicate that the priors must be related to duis as well so as a person like that mr smith is the state isn't going to be able to get the class tale you know why not take care of it now why waste everyone's time i understand the state's position that  odd position here because we have this case of it says that this is not an element of the offense as we've proven at trial however we also know that the state has to prove these things and when we have an offense that is they also adopted some of the reasoning from the majority that the revocations the majority said that the original right occasion had to be for a dui while the legislature didn't call that far but they did say that we are punishing people who have prior our separation of powers is exactly what's supposed to happen this court of the legislature wrote a law this court interpreted it the legislature agreed and disagreed and acted accordingly and because of that there is no need t i mean all those illegals are still going to be in the position of a doll but the majority of them are going to take the position of getting to elect under which statute they want to be tried so i don't know that there's going to be much that a new decision from this interpretation i think that's a matter for this court to decide i don't think it's essential for resolution of this case though the only thing that i don't point out though with respect to defend its interpretation of six three zero three before marriage was the legislation pretty much ninety percent of the legislation which effects all the subsection d it's all the subsection d felony provisions narrow those provisions significantly changed the language in all of them i don't think that was part of the heritage given take the legislation if you look back through the legislative history the illustrations started as a change to those sentencing provisions so for whatever reason the general simply wanted to narrow sentencing provisions to make it so that six three or three days