promise or was that the judges from us because the government i think of in terms of the prosecuting agency which would be cook county state's attorneys and of course they don't get into the amount of credit that the defendant will receive upon his plead guilty in this case the judge that and that and we all agree that the judge got it wrong the question is whether that here on the part of the j e because it forms in the parameters of white well let's talk about white because i read white as not being a decision that discuss this boy in a void sense as much as a decision that discusses forth a number of issues because now you're saying please itself was involuntary but we all know that you know it's long past the time to challenge the play itself you have to win if you win it all based on pointless according to illinois law in this case he enters into an agreement that's enough of this it's a motion he can that death sentence so it affects all both the voluntary and knowing of the plea every guilty plea in the state has to be done with involuntary what if what if the sentences imposed but the calculation in terms of the credit is wrong let's say the judge gives them ten days credit but he's really entitled to one hundred days from what i mean he did that the sentence is a void if the if the sentence that the actual number of years imposed is correct right that's just different story because that's a consequence he's not making a judge in a fact says to the defendant as justice palmer just pointed out you plead guilty but you don't do any more time and in fact he's imposing a sentence less to him as an incentive to plead guilty but he didn't bargain for his i'm not going to now you can offer me two years but i'm not going to take two years until until and unless you give me three hundred fifty three days credit he doesn't bargain for that he said he simply offered that and he says ok i'll take it but but but my point is is that that the defendant just doesn't he's not in any worse position trumps everything and that's why i'm not so sure that the you mother of credit that the judge says i will give you if it turns out to be wrong should render the sentence that was in compliance with the statute for the conviction he don't prosecution here by pleading guilty he hopes the state didn't have to help the state could have said i think a trial because i don't believe i did it yes as you say now ok and here the problem is that if the amount of credit and a miscalculation is the amount of credit can render the entire sentence really going back to eleven years twenty years thirty years it yes yes try to be found not guilty because yes he he received the minimum he's only coming he's he's he's going to get the minimum but he's not going to get the credit because he didn't really serve the time unless he's rid of this case or give you two years i think what if if you plead guilty we'll give you two years but we'll give you enough time credit so that you'll never serve an additional day what do you think and you know he could say he could say well you know what i really want  set let's let's make it clear here that negotiations back in ninety and ninety nine didn't occur at all unless the defendant set i want to go into the assistant state's attorney sheila o'grady chronic behalf of the people of the state of illinois and this case defendant has filed an untimely two fourteen zero one motion asking the court to specifically enforce the sentencing credit that was part of his plea bargain in order to  time so late that would automatically defeat his claim defendant is now raising for the first time on appeal allegations avoid this however defendant's claim is still part where the underlying sense let me stop you right there because you seem to suggest that because it's the first time he's raising allegations avoidance and you seem to suggest we're not actually saying that it's too late but of course that's not that's not the case it's in the so why bring it up at all if if if he can raise voidness at any time is not void defendant receive the statutory minimum in one thousand nine hundred nine aggravated battery was a class three felony subject to a sentencing range of two to five years there is no case that says the amount of sentencing credit that's promised or suggested would go just bad sentence and credit or the actual years imposed on the credit against those years are all part of a sentence and if a sentence is not permitted under the law including the amount of credit that the judge wants to impose why why should we under white say sounds like a void sentence we're going to undo it all and white the sentence was void because it didn't comply with statutory requirements to not also include time in custody for a pending conviction that's correct but in this statutory in that sense is it and that sense but in this case the actual sentence is two years in the sense in credit it's just the recommendation of the trial court is not part of the actual  should why isn't that really the crux of the bargain no more time in custody and that's certainly not the outcome that he's facing now that all goes to the voluntariness of this play though and not the voidness of the sentence itself and it's a bit it's a bit harsh i think to say the defendant voluntarily pled guilty when the promise he was given was no more time in custody but in reality we know down the line he's now he's going to have to spend some time in custody at least a year but you know i don't see why why it went when that when that when that offer was extended to him it was offered by the judge or the prosecution the den the defendant and nothing to do with it i mean he did it's not as if you know he brought it up that was offered to him as an inducement to plead guilty and why should we say recognized that sometimes there is a right without a remedy in this case there's no remedy for defendant we can't go back and specifically enforce the sentencing credit that he's asking for because that would be against the statutory language and he can't receive anything less than two years if there is a i don't believe there's a case that specifically speaks that issue but the majority should weep why should we issue such a ruling in this case it follows from the line of cases that hold that the issue of sentencing credit that goes to a defendant is an issue of voluntariness of the plea and not the sentence pled guilty but he wanted to he pled guilty to the understanding that had been reached by all the parties and to now say he had only two years to you know come to realize that the agreement that was struck could not be fulfilled by anyone that you know he's on a lot why why should we say the state should be out of luck and the state should have to do it all over again as your honor pointed out earlier the prejudice is at the at this point given the passage of time has shifted towards the state or maybe that's the maybe that's the the the wrong that has no remedy because the wrong originated with the state or least the judge at this point though eleven years have passed since the underlying aggravated battery the state's ability to try this case has been severely compromised at this point as you have pointed out but it has no application to mount a defense at this point defendant has received the minimum of two years he's no worse off than he would have been there's really nothing this court can do at this point to give him what he originally applied for because it was statutorily and eligible but that doesn't render the sentence itself of two really the the best result as your honor pointed out earlier when this is the ultimate claim and nothing transported us it's a drastic remedy in this case it would there's nothing to say that two years is void and so it would be an impermissible expansion of the concept of pointless to say that the amount of sentencing credit can suddenly impact the sense itself as you pointed out before they're often mistakes in the calculation of cents in credit sometimes they're off there's some wrongs that don't have room because it just seems that this wrong the only person who's going to suffer from it is the defendant well also the correctional officer that was the victim of the aggravated battery his ability to testify and c justice with ninety four percent of the of cases in criminal courts or pleas of guilty so that our system of justice is more of police then of trials and i offer that to you to go because this is an important case with two critical issues venice and voluntariness he cannot agree to a sentence that you don't quite know everything right about that go ahead and amend the minute us well should we come away from this hearing today with the belief that in every one of those cases that was a void sentence apples  penalty is anywhere from three to fifty years and and the defendant was offered a plea guilty because i don't want to face fifty years i'll take three and i was wrong about that ok that's not i think it's too late for them ok is it illegal is it a legal sense will we know that the number of days is a legal right but my question is and i think everyone's question is this it makes the whole thing because of why this and because of the plea agreement what you're saying is it's it's difficult to sort out their separate the voluntary ness from the void sentence because they go hand in hand in this case he pled guilty because he was off for what turned