unexpected windfall based on a mutual mistake here the people dismissed eight felony firearm us and agreed to a twenty four month probation term in exchange for the defendant leading guilty to a single class for aggravated unlawful use of a weapon that agreement was based on the understanding that when it's all said and done this defendant would have a felony gun conviction on his record last for now we just dismissed counts that remain constitutional in particular count number for a class for a u w for possessing a firearm under the age of twenty one and to be clear here your honour's the people are not asking that this defendant in additions it's absolutely not true it's all the people are asking is they have the opportunity to have that bargain for class for a u w on his record when this is all over and in order to get to that point service probation terms and would remain on the on his on his on his background his record so there's no need to a stick at the time and of course after aguilar that conviction that that particular subsection of it a u w was declared  at that point just under contract principles is this court is home for decades the parties had to be restored to their status before the police and so so the mistake does not have to be that tony you can be a mistake comes to be because of a subsequent event well to me just to clarify the state really was at the time of plea because at the time of the plea both parties believe that this particular form was that there the parties agreed it was an armed robbery and the parties agreed that it would plead guilty to one count of armed robbery in exchange for the state recommending a sentence of no more than thirty years but the understanding was based on the fact that the minimum sentence defendants healer could have would be twenty one years six plus the mandatory fifteen year add up after the plea agreement was entered this court in hostile health that bargain was based on their understanding at the time both parties the minimum sentence he could get was twenty one years it wasn't until years later that that huge mistake became apparent and hostile that's similar to here  plea the parties believed back down to be constitutional years later both parties point out that was a mistake it's unconstitutional if the parties unknown at the time it was going to declared unconstitutional the state would not  on the same situation has say we're creating this through a contract principles and he's allowed to withdraw his guilty plea if the two fourteen zero one in the order of the court actually granted they came to the conviction because it was based upon an input unconstitutional statue do we have those same concerns about a plea agreement in the benefit of the bargain yes we did most of necessary for him to work with draw his plea agreement to get relief or overs of just necessary for this conviction vacated the results to say it would have the same effect because this negotiated plea agreement was predicated on him having a class for a you got you conviction once everything was said and done taken off his record and that's not fair to the state because if the state had known at the time in two thousand this particular form of a debt deal was going to be declared unconstitutional we would have gone forward on c four form of the w based on him being under twenty one possessing fire so while he has served his term of probation the ultimate benefit to him the state has to have an opportunity to get back to it reinstating those other charges and again this comes down to the fact this is a negotiated plea so certainly he served his term at this point of probation but he doesn't have that bargain for conviction on his record and if the parties unknown at the time the state would have dismissed all the count for going forward on all the states asking for at this point is to be had the opportunity to go forward on a valid count we are not asking this dependence or any additional time any more probation just that ultimately the should have its part of the bargain and have the opportunity to go forward on a unquestionably constitutional count issue the defendant raises an issue of statute of limitations would prevent you from proceeding would you address certainly r attentions here was told once that prosecution was gone and it remains toll because this case never reached the final disposition on appeal and again this is all in the context of this being a charges remain in the it hasn't been addressed your honor as far as in this context again because this is a negotiated guilty plea and typically if it's going to be withdrawn it's done within thirty days but here b three to consider an appeal from the denial of its motion to reinstate however rule three zero four b three only allows one to appeal from orders granting or denying any really great in a petition under section two fourteen zero one here the states motion to reinstate charges was not any part of the relief requested in the original two thousand and one titian by explain language rule three zero or be three does not apply even  language does not apply the state also argues in the alternative the article six section six of the illinois constitution provides an avenue for appeal however section six only provides for an appeal from final orders the court's order to then lead to reinstate was not a final order because the state can still refile the charges subject to any statutory or constitutional limitations or reinstate is not a final order subject to an appeal under section six additionally there is currently no case pending from which the state can appeal the two fourteen zero one motion a petition only addressed it conviction not the  conviction vacated and the not in the charges not only there is no case pending from which the state can appeal finally the right to an appeal under section six is circumscribed by the illinois supreme court rules here this is not final order and no supreme court rule provides for an appeal from the denial of a motion to reinstate charges as the appellate court cockily found that it was without jurisdiction to hear the state's appeal in this case even if  before the prosecution commenced charges cannot simultaneously be pending and also effectively dismissed at the same time it's simply it doesn't make sense the the state suggestion to the contrary would render the statute of limitation meaningless so unless and until the state can assert an exception to the rule here then the statute of limitations bars reinstated and all the charges at this time i'd like to also briefly address the state's argument about a mutual mistake there was no mutual mistake here at the time of the plea and throughout the time that mr sheen all searches probation this was a valid conviction throughout that entire period and just because neither before he entered the plea because he has already served his entire time his entire sentence successfully finally the state argues that it would be unfair to them to affirm the appellate court's finding that jurisdiction to hear an appeal but the state is not without a remedy as it is free to refile the charges if the defendant's motion to dismiss based on the statute of limitations is denied as the state suggested it would be and they can pursue the convictions he cannot be put back in the position he was in before the guilty plea furthermore the state's argument that it does not see additional time is of little assurance should all should not be asked to take the state's word for it that he won't be sentenced to more time the state wishes to revive the knowledge charges and i believe they can prove each of those charges ultimately it would be up to the trial court to issue a sentence to mr tional and not to the state he would almost certainly be exposed to more time should he be successfully prosecuted for the fence where he has already served a bowl term of probation the balance of concerns about fundamental fairness waves in mr shaw paper if there are no further provision provides per se appeal in these circumstances additionally there is no basis to reinstate charges or the statute of limitations has expired and the state's current effort to bring charges is addictive your honour's what the people are seeking is fairness and justice people are not being a victim of seeking an unfair is all for this defendant or for the people of the state of illinois as to the fact that he finish if you're honest this is no different than when a defendant has finished his sentence but has his conviction to turn overturned on appeal even though he may have been issues confection is sentence at that point the state is free to retry that defendant even though he's already served his sentence same situation here and again the defendant can take the state's work for the people are not sitting next to sentence under contract principles the people are allowed to insist to reinstate those charges defended talked about sexual imitation but again under the statute limitations section of the statute those are pending contract principals and that there has to be fairness to both sides not just defendant but also to the state here it was in the state's interest to have this defect who undoubtedly committed a class for a u w in two thousand not to have that on his record was under twenty one of the time this court held in mostly that particular form of