an open guilty plea to one count of criminal sexual abuse stemming from sexual intercourse with his sixteen year old girlfriend who was four months shy of her seventeenth birthday the court accepted his plea without informing him of the nature of the offense or the range of penalties available after hearing brief argument aggravation and mitigation in which the state asked that the defendant be required to register as a sex offender the court told christopher that there was no sentence as to the sex offender registration and what amounted to time served and some fines although the sentence the written sentence order had a list of preprinted conditions of sentence with boxes for the court to check if they applied the box next to register percent sex offender registration act was left on checked thus when christopher walked out of the courtroom that day in two thousand and seven he had absolutely no reason to believe that he was required to register as a sex offender imagine his surprise when in two thousand on his attorney appointed on the failure register charge recognizing the predicament crisper was then filed a motion to vacate the plea and sometimes the state perhaps recognizing some of the equities in this judgment but the motion itself did not state what it was being brought pursuant to so in the interests of pursuing an argument on behalf of my client i argued was my position has always been that it was i acknowledge in my reply brief that if this court were to interpret it as not being brought under six zero forty that yes my client has cannot my argument fails in that we can't there's no remedy here it can't be sent back for six afford you have additions if it wasn't brought under six a party going to this court is vested with the power to create jurisdictional rules and without power comes the power to create exceptions thirty years ago and people vacating this court extended the request of a doctor to criminal cases thereby wisely recognizing that sometimes situations arise which in the interests of justice otherwise final criminal judgments may be revisited in creating this court explicitly stated that the revestive and doctrine permits will against a robust a court which has general jurisdiction over the matter with both personal and subject matter jurisdiction after the over the particular cause after the thirty day time lines have run for the doctor to apply the case in court stated that the parties must actively participate without objection in proceedings which are inconsistent with the merits of the prior judgment the meaning of that phrase is at issue here until the second district's decision in this case the weight of the illinois authority consistent with catering held that the opposing parties participation in that hearings  again their participation in hearings without objecting to timeliness along with arguments directed against the merits of the untimely motion was sufficient for investment to apply now surely there are times such as in bannister where both parties for whatever reason are seeking to vacate a final order however the ruling caving does not require the parties to agree nor does it require that they both take positions which are inconsistent with the final judgment it requires only that the parties participate objection and proceedings which are inconsistent with the merits of the majority of the poll court decisions have found that actively participating in a hearing on a motion directed against a judgment is sufficient because such participation is tacit acknowledgement that the court may revisit that the prior order if the price if the opposing party wants to prevent the revisiting of the prior judgment all it need to do is object on timeliness grounds this is not a heavy burden indeed here had the state objected in the trial court rather than waiting until the appellate court to object on time in its grounds we would not even be here as the state's objection would have entirely stopped the defendant from arguing rivette spent in the interpreted by the majority the public at least provides parties the opportunity to present their arguments on the merits to court and let the court decide whether the the moving party should be granted relief you say that he act and case law we understand the use of too poor to no one post judgement cases we have very highly developed jurisprudence about what happens after a case has the procedures that are already in place here he did not know all of the problem with his case until all of the timeline said he would be in a different position i think if the timeline to file  things happen like what happened to christopher where he doesn't know until well after all of the timelines have run that something happened that he didn't know that something was wrong with the prior judgement that he would have challenged had he known about it in time and here the time the reasons he didn't know it was because nobody in that court when he entered his guilty plea apparently knew what the law required and he was left to believe that he did not have to register as a sex offender and that's a significant factor to consider considering it was going to require him to do something for ten years beyond lee and had he known he perhaps would have tried to  rather than entering and blindly perhaps he would have tried to negotiate for something different perhaps if his attorney hadn't realized that this would be required his attorney would have tried to negotiate for something different  so the fact that he did not know that he would be required to register leaves the question open as to whether his plea was even knowing involuntary and that is something that should be explored and their investment doctrine provides an opportunity for that to be explored please the court could you speak up lawyers please certainly the stops from the attorney general's office for the people of the state of illinois i'd like to first touch briefly on some of the factual disputes in the case and then  touch briefly on each of the state's three alternative arguments i'll go more in more depth about the argument regarding the sufficiency of the notice of appeal and then i'll touch on robustness just some of the factual disputes that have come up i believe defense counsel just argued that defined it wasn't advised of the nature of the charge or the maximum sentence we disagree on there's a record citation in footnote one of our brief defendant was advised of those things i believe there was also mention that the plea might not be knowing involuntary defendant hasn't argued that yet in this case that was not in his motion in the trial court his motion the trial court was based on the his theory that the sentence was actually too lenient because it was required to specify registration but it  didn't and regarding defendant's awareness there is no evidence in the record that defendant was actually unaware his motion didn't allege and he didn't offer any evidence that he was actually unaware it's true as counsel points out  touch briefly on each of the state's three alternative arguments or first argument is that the notice of appeal was insufficient because the defendant specified the wrong judgment if the court were to reject that argument only then would the court need to decide whether the zero four or whether it was some other type of motion if the court reaches this point we'd asked the court to include that it was not a six or four motion defendant never invoked six o four in the trial court he said that for the first judgment and direct that court to affirm the trial court's judgment because the only argument defend it raised in the appellate court was based on six o four which of course doesn't apply if you have some other type of motion if the court were to conclude that the motion had been brought under six  four that would be the only scenario where the court would be required to redress robust if the court reaches that point we've asked the court to affirm on the grounds the appellate court relied on which is that the notice of appeal was untimely because the six zero four motion with untimely end didn't hol that we're suggesting that the court consider abolishing the doctrine the revised my doctrine runs up against the rules governing collateral attacks and allows parties to basically circumvent those rules and that's inconsistent with the well established rule that that time how the rest of us my doctrine can be reconciled with flowers so the court doesn't really address that god so it's it's an open to address that however it s procedural question it's a little awkward but certainly we are aware that there have been cases in illinois in which the state has agreed that the conviction was wrongly obtained and the cases have been dismissed state on its own could seek supervisory relief from this court from what i understand those those cases don't come up that often and it's our view that supervisory believe is a sufficient remedy for those cases  and so that's why we think we've estimate is it necessary given all the trouble that's caused given the way that it's inconsistent with other aspects of illinois law i recommendation would be to abolish it at least in a criminal context if the court doesn't want to go that far we' court to consider clarifying it reiterating the rule of canon hating and bannister and stressing that there really are two requirements for investment the parties must participate in action in consistent with the merits of the judgement which require judgment and they also have to not object based on timeliness and so we do encourage the court to speak on revive regardless of how it resolves the case i want to talk a little bit more about our first jurisdictional argument regarding the defendant's plead guilty or sentenced and then they wait more than one year before coming back with a motion that alleges the judgment is void then they go on just filing notice of appeal that specifies their own judgment and smith the notice referenced the judgment of argument that's actually a challenge to the underlying judgment despite what defendant says defendant says that of a rule six zero four appeal is really just an appeal from an order to nine to six so for motion that's not correct under this course judgment motion is not itself a judgment it's not independently appealable to reviewable on an appeal from the underlying judgment but if you want to challenge the denial of a post judgment motion your appeal is actually from the original judgment defendant needed to specify that judgment and he didn't and that brings his case where only within smith the only difference is that the two orders are reversed so what the court this court said in smith was that specifying the wrong judgment speak briefly on the notice of appeal issue this argument the state is raising is as far as i can recall the same argument that was raised in tyrone patrick which is that the notice the date on the notice of appeal which was the date of the last judgment they had in the trial court was not sufficient to let the state know what was being appealed i believe this court's holding in patrick was that that date was sufficient to give the state notice that the defendant was appealing from the judgment below and reaffirmed case law that says that the notice of appeal serves to put the state on notice that the defendant is appealing and it is in fact the items briefed in the brief which are the issues on appeal i point out that as an patrick here the state has fully briefed the issue raised on appeal regardless of the date that was on the notice of appeal thus the state has not proven or shown in any way shape or form that it was prejudiced by lack of knowledge of what the exact nature of the appeal might be turning to the state's arguments about their concerns about the state of the facts that i presented compliance with supreme court all six zero four do we can't reach that issue yet i raised it here simply as a response to a question i believe i received from just the state also alleges that there is no evidence that the defendant did not know that he had to register as a sex offender except that the court told him he didn't have to to assert that a seventeen year old who was told by the court but he didn't have to register as a sex offender might somehow known that he had to despite the fact that he'd just been told by a judge that he didn't have to is preposterous one of the issues the state argues as to why there were doctors should be abandoned is  because it is it runs up against the rules you have this is true of every exception to a role that's what they are there are exceptions they're not going to always agree with the rules because they're meant to not agree with the rules it provides one more rock in the way to the courthouse door for people like the defendant like in these who were found years later through d n a to be in the senate to get their convictions overturned i can't say that i know how all those cases are handing out what what procedural grounds are being cited in the trial courts have not yet seen a record for one hundred decision on one however i hazard to guess that it's the reverse of a doctor and that is getting those people into court now turning to flowers we don't know perhaps this court now is but i don't know what whether or not revenge was even argued in flowers well because revising it was not addressed by the court directly i don't know whether it was briefed whether the parties even tried that venue however what i do know is that the majority building corp which both predate katie so the move without addressing kading which should have been the current precedent the court looked older language and decided on that on those grounds and that may be simply because your best wasn't raised so nobody thought to look at hating but i think that's at least worth looking at as to why flowers is so problematic for the asking that this court abolish the rebuffs men doctrine is asking this court to say that a seventeen year old who enters a blind guilty plea to having sex with a sixteen year old girlfriend and is never told he has to register as a sex offender and finds out three years