law and i think the easiest way to understand it is to think about the mechanics of getting offended from the sentencing his or her sentencing hearing to the to the custody of the department of corrections obviously a defendant can't just show up at i document it is a copy of the first act correct judgment correct but it's not a separate it's not the content is not supposed to be separate but it is still physically separate the document that is delivered on the bus with the defendant were faxed over to the be in prison under whose authority really is the court's a copy of the court's order yes so certainly the court continues to have jurisdiction to over its own order in order to correct  to do that yes or if and but that's really a feature of it being clerical that it's well established that the circuit court loses jurisdiction to resolve any substantial matters within a certain period of time after  legal rights and responsibilities of the parties that that was a compass and the judge so these non substantial matters we say as as a sort of shorthand for figuring out what sorts of things are litigation that reviewing final judgments and other orders as provided by this court which there is no dispute an order disposing of a motion to amend minimus one way or the other is not one of those fashion so when defend counters that this finally resolved this question over whether to get more credit i think that's mr scripted of of what the defendant was actually seeking if you look at page c one forty four of the record if anyone is saying my judgment is perfect i have no qualms with that but for some reason the warrants correctional center records department is under the mistaken impression that i'm entitle to less credit and the judge actually the defendant was not asking for more credit he was asking for the credit he was already given which he believed a clerical error was your honour's can invoke supervisory authority and that as defendant notes he's requested supervisory review based on the late notice of appeal we have no objections beyond bad when looking at the merits of these issues if i'm understanding your honest question correctly defendant hasn't presented the merits of of his whether to knock off the fees or whether a credit should be applied against what he considers to be fines that's not present of this court so we don't think that this court should exercise for review of the merits because we don't have a complete record at your understand have  again this equitable exceptional allowing the parties come back to the court where they already were and say we found an error under certain circumstances that wasn't the case here there was no earlier deal in this case yesterday and then what would happen was in their concession there were it's possible there would be another concession in that case but defendant hasn't asked revisit it because you thought it was wrongly decided right well we we did oppose the decision at the time but we've presented our reasons that we think qualify under under sh surely because i thought it was wrongly decided right but having said that in revisiting couple euro you know i lost that battle and the majority reached the result is a matter of statutory construction very in and that's where starry decisis considerations are yet the repairs because the legislature is always free to amend the statute if it disagrees with with the court's strongest when it's a case of statutory construction up here is started slices nonetheless permits for decisions to be reconsidered on the showing of special justification could cause a howling reasons not b c we have the strongest burden to make that show in this case against which this court was interpreted in the general assemblies and was that we had the void sentence structure which meant that per diem predicate was going to be on this court's interpretation one of virtually any statutory sentencing challenge that could be thousand and eight to just put this on par with every other sentencing challenge but instead to put it standing alone is the only claim that can be raised in time the second is the ability to recognize reason to reconsider an opinion under stars isis and the policy consideration of how errol is that this would be the most efficient way if litigants just want to give the issue to the court the fastest way to resolve it is immediately in whatever  court it's presented to and we think that the explosion of section one ten fourteen cases in the appellate court after hour by arrow demonstrates that this has not represented an efficiency gain this court has told litigants that they don't need to resolve