in this case for purposes of a d p a that process was completed on in the state court on august eighth two thousand and twelve in the first dca issued its decision its judgment the meaning of two to four forty one it became final six when you could have it but did not six or chart in u s supreme court ok so help me with that a little bit i would have thought that given the proceedings that remained pending on remand we gotta figure out what to do with the fifty bucks that he actually couldn't yet have gone to the u s supreme court because the u s supreme court says you know with respected judgments of state courts don't even think about coming to us until it's final final final final final nothing left to do but execute the judgment because what they have said in clay human as twelve fifty seven is a general provision to two hundred forty one a very specific it governs federal habeas corpus and that statute says limitation shall run from the date on that your judgment becomes final conclusion of just looking at twelve fifty seven i mean could he or could he have not gone to that it would have worked because finality is defined by twenty two d one but not with respect to what the u s supreme court thinks it can or can't review that's twelve fifty seven right but supreme court process was completed in this case the appellate process was completed on august eighth two thousand and twelve under supreme court rule thirteen point one excuse me thirteen point three whether where you measure the ninety days know final as as measured from the last you know sort of opportunity to seek review your only review here would be in the u s supreme court so it feels like to me we're looking at the question under twelve fifty seven whether the u s supreme court would have jurisdiction over that judgment and i think  let me ask you this do you acknowledge that let's forget about twenty two forty four do you want to let's assume we're talking about twelve fifty seven if we're looking at twelve fifty seven do you acknowledge that the supreme court would not have so sure of jurisdiction over this appeal they would that absolutely given the fact that they sent it back to the remained at the state trial judge to do something more than it ministerial task makes them more findings on the fifty bucks because two to four two to four fo  gotten abs yet all right was it was just the dca has done its thing re mandated for something i think other than ministerial to make some findings about fifty bucks and chamblee says i'm going to the u s supreme court does the u supreme court have jurisdiction over that appeal outside the federal habeas context i'm not sure and i guess what i'm suggesting is that unless i'm missing something that's sort of the jumping off point because the federal habeas context measures petition nonono i get it i'm just trying to figure out if this fella couldn't have gone to the u s supreme court from the dca which i don't think he could have because i don't think that the d c s ruling was final within the meaning of twelve fifty seven then i don't really think the twenty to forty four do you want to have ever started ticking and i'm a can i ask you a question what happened what in the world happened when the dca sent it back down to the trial court it just sits there was far as i know nothing's on a final judgment or decree within the meaning of twelve fifty seven a is unaffected by this disposition sites to pierce county another sprinkled case saying that  i worried that the fifty dollars was a and was part of the sentence and the senate would perhaps be part of the substantive judgment that would determine to judge anderson was this is a fine not a cost but it sounds like if we look at one it in fact is a cost not a fine i'm not quite sure the fine for number one is maybe number one is the county assessment from number two got it the supreme court next controls that issue the jurisdiction is governed sometime in us from two to four forty one day is a specific finality felony convictions long as the court found the defendant had the ability to pay and the fine would not be prevented thereby from being rehabilitated or making restitution citing seven seventy five point zero eight three six two a and b is the is the zero three version of this statute that was placed at the time as to cost vs fine different from what it is today i would have to read it you know kind of true we can check that out ak sure what i was talking briefly and he remarks in response to your presentation if he has a valid excuse which will determine we'll be in recess until tomorrow at nine o'clock