he asked some real fundamental questions st before we get into your work which are now you mate this court has never really spoken on the issue here about when there is this so don't we have to start there before we get to four which are it's such a don't we have to decide what happens when a defendant raises the claim that his sentencing hearing was flawed because there was an error yes it was a start there right yes and so in the johnson case that we just decided recently it's not the same era but the argument w that there was an error in the sentencing hearing and this court then had a long discussion about the history of negotiated plea this case discussion and how the rules have changed and ultimately this court said well whatever the error was that mr johnston is raising in his sentencing hearing we can't reach the merits of that because this was a negotiated plea i would agree and so the only way mr johnson careful about allowing a negotiated plea to be vacated that there's finality that this is a very serious decision to to plead guilty and we're only going to allow a defendant to withdraw the potential sentence is in the case and this argument i want to the very heart of voluntariness and yeah in the bryant case the court said well you know he hasn't shown any prejudice here and even though he's talking about how you know this plea wasn't no one involuntary the court there said he hasn't shown any prejudiced and so we're going to say that's harmless and so we're going to say there's been no manifest injustice just describe what bryant did and then ends the case but somehow the appellate court has decided this kind of error this kind of error we're going to do something else we're going to vacate the sentence remain and and have a completely new right and i think it why did your client why is this so different from this other really fundamental kind of arguments i think the difference would be in this case the family is not automatically get to this case this is a defendant who's done will be changed their mind this is not the issue of it's not of all three it is a specific step for procedural claim that the court or that the legislature by some importan level i'm so that's all the state is arguing should would be the proper result or result of this which is not to say in this case certainly what's likely to happen case well there are i think i've made clear states not actually arguing that in this particular case it should go back we believe for sure of not raising it or i think part of the reluctance to do so is have all the information has his or her disposal and it's so important we won't let you waive that waiver of the affirmative relinquishment of the right but on the other hand you're saying if you don't think i haven't heard nor seen so i'm going to give you the chance to explain this argument how it's where is what the purpose of section five hundred and thirty one was which is to ensure that the circuit court has the information that it needs to accept or reject think if you look at the differences between waiting for becomes a little easier routes and that's something that can be so important you can't wait because there's no coming back from way other than attacking whether there was because you will have no ability to correct that if the error of not just happens to be in this particular case it's not an instance where there's really any prejudice that can be found and so that's why the state is arguing for  attention let the trial court decide whether or not there was made and in doing that you're going to take care of most of these cases because in most these instances the trial courts say ok more what we formed and once again going up and down so i think the most important thing to do is to recognize the issue in this case whether forfeiture of the defendant or the state is forgiven is the question whether for sure  yes and no and the court looks at that and determines whether or not they said there is precious shown so that it should be withdrawn and then when they said the court says now it's over that none of this case other cases is this remedy that now we're going to send the case they felt they had to it looks like they felt they had to make some have some type of vehicle to be able to say that five hundred and thirty one is required in all instances with a negotiator is that how you see this or am i wrong at the priors and the p s i i you determine that the negotiated plea was right reinstated if not vacate is guilty yes were they looking for just some vehicle to be able to say in your opinion were they looking for some vehicle to be able to very strongly that you cannot wait it as age and so this is all come about because we've got this special statute and there's not yet a supreme court ruling  d the purpose of this is to ensure that the trial court has all necessary information about the defendant before the trial court imposes a sentence so you have a defendant right and you have for lack of a better term  trial court's right to make sure that they're imposing the right sounds and i think that's why we have it's a tough situation and that's why there's a conflict in the districts right where your honor i think so there's definitely two rights for one joint right that asks the result what do we do when it is not respected if it's not followed and if we all if holds that it has t the fine line distinction there would be it's the difference between or if you're saying defend it took place in this actual sense of humor without raising a contemporary objection that would be more along the lines of you m was a sentence for ten years over the minimum there were many charges dismissed as a reason and as to the states for sure i would just say that what we did not bring this up before briefing in this court speed now is that right now or mr dering go for your arguments today