by the only supreme court case people versus curry and the united states supreme court case left their purses cooper in people versus curry twenty years ago the illinois supreme court first recognized the right to effect the aris case for a new trial which included the resumption of the plea bargaining process in doing so the only supreme court recognized that ordering a new trial properly puts the parties and positions that they occupy prior to the constitutional violation here the circuit court was required to follow curry and leffler to implement a remedy that neutralized the change in the sixth amendment violation the offer that the state presented to the court included the vacation of mr hudson's conviction and sentence that the circuit court misunderstood its role the reason that mr hudson was back before the circuit court was for the implementation of a remedy for a constitutional violation but the reject or accept pleas to to a certain amount of time the circuit court has no discretion if you fail to provide any remedy for a constitutional violation that's the issue that is before this court is whether or not the circuit court provided any remedy for constitutional violation because the circuit court did not follow the illinois supreme court's direction incurring in vacating mr presence conviction and sentence and ordering the parties to either face a new trial or resume plea bargaining but rather just rejected is the proper court to first determined whether or not the circuit court remedy the constitutional violation that rule then we would go back to federal court on finding a new federal  petition seeking shortening remedies are that this court reversed the circuit court order vacation of mr hudson's conviction and sentence and either direct the circuit court to accept a plea of twenty years or to order a new trial which may include the resumption of and we should get the work which was twenty years twenty years or pursuant to curry order a new trial that is what puts the parties back in the position prior to the constitutional violation that is the mandate that comes from the ally supreme court's decision in a hurry and the united states supreme court's decision in laughter while they left the contours of the remedies to future courts the left are leaving it to curry they required that implement a remedy for a constitutional violation you have to put the parties back in the position that they occupied prior to that violation in cases like this for ineffective assistance of counsel at plea bargaining that is going back to the initial plea that is why the available that would be you under state law what because the charge the new charges that the information that the state is bringing is to a lesser charge it's to attempt armed robbery federal court orders that the state must really awkward the twenty deal and that offer must be to charge that would not trigger mandatory life in prison which is the is the class one but this is after that assuming hudson accept the offer the trial up work and then exercise would be entitled to this trial would they be restricted then to the class one they being home during the the state that i mean if they offer has to be made to something that doesn't trigger life in all of that also the wayside and a new trial if it occurs then is that the charge or is it the original no pursuant to the federal court's order that the charge is to the it did it disagreed openly with the finding of ineffective assistance of counsel it stated repeatedly that the only person who did nothing wrong here is mr hudson required before it would consider the prima between the parties required mr hudson complete an affidavit admitting guilt this was not an admission of guilt to the underlying offense for which he would be pleading guilty but an admission of guilt that any ineffective assistance of counsel was his fault that he was the only person who based on a disagreement that there even was a constitutional violation to begin with evidences that it did not remedy that constitutional violation which is a breach it was repeatedly your honor but part supreme court precedent in its disagreement with the federal district court i would also like to bring up the standard of review here the standard of review is no because the issue presented in this reaction at the time of trial was that the the state the defense and the court all all believe that the defendant all misunderstood that the defense had only three convictions they were not looking one of which is to just as you said that the second one didn't apply ranchi that the third one doesn't apply either because if you reference the paragraph before that it says the second form of prejudice arises in re sentencing judge indeed would be constrained to impose the mandatory life prison term if the state court simply held recently saying on trial convictions so some other really is required and just re must make an offer that will that will allow the court to consider we with the sentence will not be a natural one i think that when we're just going the state's attorney so what they can offer on what he can offer he had make an offer to something other than the armed robbery so that there could be a sentence that would not be a mandatory sentence so then that otherwise it's a sham otherwise you go back it's like oh sure you know it reconsider and it has to be nationalized this way there was a real possibility was limited to that it would be different between mandatory sentences and different between cases of pre sentencing and that no other court implementing a left or remedy has left the conviction and sentence in place the courts have either accepted the offer please or have if they're not willing to examine to be offered plea have considered a sentence in between the reoffend plea and the natural life sentence carol the federal district court recognized that the remedy in these cases would be challenging but that the difficulty in figuring out that remedy is no excuse for failing to provide any remedy for ineffective assistance of counsel at politico she actions because mr hudson has not