get only half of my head should you have and may it may it please the court my name is judge stone representing the appellant michael smith judges this is an unusual the defendant after a hearing in aggravation and mitigation arriving at a sentence of six years for count two and six years for come three both within the sentencing parameters as prescribed by the was ever it was a single act a single accident the two victims although the sentences were with him the proper sentencing range vacated the sentences sue a spine fate and attempted and ultimately judge coppa true replace her after she retired re sentenced the defendant to nine years of course nine is greater than six the history of the court's analysis of consecutive sentencings is quite interesting in karni in two thousand and one the illinois supreme court said each conviction results in a discrete sentence that must be treated individually each sentence must be treated individually the six year sentence and the six year sentence were individual sentences determine the manner in which a sentence is to be served not the actual sentence itself so that the sentences in mr smith's case were six years for aggravated the u i and six years for aggravated dui which either merged into a single sentence or if not merged were to mandatorily be served years or ten years or twelve years but she chose to and sentence him to six years and the six year term that was imposed becomes a fixed fact which cannot be increased unless of course there is evidence at a reception saying that mr smith committed some act or acts that aggravated the original sentence that was not the case here mr smith was and is a model having to do with the void sentence doctrine but in two thousand and fifteen our supreme court in casselberry put an end to the weight sentence doctrine we don't have which sentences in illinois anymore if there was a sentencing error supplemental brave the purpose of a six so for the certificate is to make sure that the trial court is fully apprised of the errors in the case and that the defendant other record and look at the court's file i have done all of those things and it's clear from my argument to the court because i make references to the court record and to the transcripts before the court that that was done i confess that it was an error for me to not file a proper six so for the certificate but the purpose of the rule was met the court was fully apprised the defendant was fully understood the issues and the record had been fully reviewed by me both as counsel at the trial court post sentencing and here on appeal the people who with that argument and i think it would be well i don't minimize the obligation of a trial lawyer to comport with the rule of six so for the i think it would be putting form over substance in this case never only in this case because it's so clear from the record that i have reviewed the record below that i have read the transcripts that i did consult with my client yes justice identical motions raising the identical issues with likely the identical results and be back in front of you and in a year where there need not look at the record of  which may or may have missed while other issues are you well it is my st self serving response to that is i didn't miss any other issues this is the sole issue in this today to the date of the original six so for the certificate only this time make sure that the words of my six or for the certificate are exact from the order from the six of four rule by the record in this case and that is in the interest of judicial economy there is no need to send this back to the trial or supreme court the sentences are determined the consecutive sentence determine the manner in which the sentence was served not the actual sentence itself the actual sentence itself according to she certainly didn't correct or error or error was to make a six year sentence to run run consecutively with a six year sentence remember the instruction of our supreme court is that it is it consecutively nature is how the sentence is to be soaring not what the sentence is and given that she could have sentenced this fellow anywhere from what to the twelve years and chose six as the appropriate sentence after hearing aggravation after hearing mitigation and then sentenced him to six again on the other count she had she has set a sentence and of course our statute says that sentence cannot be increased unless there has been post sentencing aggravation and of course there was none in this  it was not in the go she had a plea she had it was an open plea but it wasn't a negotiated plea so you were not required to withdraw the plea before you appealed this case as a correct that's correct here position that you looked at all the records that existed at the time even though your certificate seemed to indicate an ambiguity as to whether or not it actually still the judge and for which we had no transcripts of the sentencing hearing have you consulted with your client regarding whether or not he wishes to withdraw his plea yes he does not wish to withdraw his pl year sentence under truth in sentencing thank you your time is up are there any other questions thank you judges representing the people as police in this case this case presents an interesting question concerning whether a court within thirty days of years that was six years on each conviction for i get it to you i and that was a reason sensing decision by judge crater taking into account that there were two victims who suffered serious debilitating harm here as well as the fact that the defendant had a very poor rehabilitated potential but had been convicted of dui and i'm not i survived many times in the past several times in the past however the sense of the judge crater fashion the two consecutive six year terms did not conform to the law we know this from the law to leer case that only one aggravated to you i can diction could be entered in this case when judge perry the stone's argument that you have two distinct annexe are two distinct charges one of those charges they had to be merged and now you're exceeding what the one legitimate conviction when it was given the six years how do you go over the six years and and you know guys the intent of the judge and judges sentencing order could not be imposed by operation of law that that to those two convictions had to merge so this was not a sentence that could ever be served in a minute this court found that a it wasn't exactly on par but send a sentence of four years probation was a sense of the a light that could be served so that the court's subsequent if position of the four year term after reconsideration  was an increase but but that's not the case here there's a little there needed to be a sentencing another sentencing hearing the way it was structure of a judge pray there is it did appear that she right that a reasoned decision that the defendant should be sentenced to a nine year term so that actually the defendant had had the benefit of that as well but basically the people are seventy that the court acted properly here the prohibition against increasing his sentence doesn't apply because the court never considered reconsidered its original sentence the court was correcting in a legal invalid sense it could not be imposed  guilty plea from the sentencing hearing president only relevant bases it's our position which he agrees with that that this fulfilled the requirements of the purpose of r well the suggestion that he could file and this court you know doesn't doesn't eliminate the problem that i also didn't if i that he's basically indicating argue his own ineffectiveness for not filing the proper certificate in the st place it be our position that the proper remedy if the court determines that the the council's representations are not sufficient to cure the indeed if mr stone either here today or in the trial court files a six or thirty six if there's still a question of whether or not the review was sufficient by mr stone he represents it was but i still in his words this morning could not have been imposed that's simply not the case illinois law is clear that consecutive sentencings determine the manner in which a sentence is to be served not the actual six years in athens that's a six year sentence under truth in sentencing and the manner in which she wanted those sentences imposed the sentences that she arrived at six  it of sentences but again the the the intent clearly her intent was that he get twelve years as opposed to six correct so it isn't it isn't it doesn't the argument have intuitive that he only if you will that the nine years was certainly less than the trial she intended to get of six years i'm count three you're to serve six years now she could have said eight she could have said twelve she could have said mine but she said six after listening to all of the aggravation at the sentencing hearing when by the way i'd like to correct one thing that mr jacobs that i was not the lawyer on the plea i came in after the plea after the sentence in an effort to correct the consecutive nature of the sentence but by the time i got the court the judge it corrected it herself but i was not the police who were at i really don't think this case is a if it is true that consecutive sentences determine the manner in which a sentence is to be served not the actual sends and if the actual sentence is six years and six years and the if it must be served  currently then the judge kopeks committed ever when he increased a six year sentence despite the fact that a court can act in pieces satins once it has been imposed according to illinois statute and the case law just say that it's a pleasure arguing before court in the year of covert this is the st time i put on the suit in twelve months and i'm so happy to think of you i think this is the nd time i've put a robot we will take the