In State v. Esquer, 26 Ariz. App. 572, 573, 550 P.2d 240, 241 (1976) the Court reversed the defendant's conviction based on his guilty plea because the transcript of the plea hearing showed the trial court, inter alia, had failed to advise the defendant of his constitutional rights. After the reversal, the state moved to correct the transcript of the plea hearing pursuant to Rule 31.8(h), Ariz. R. Crim. P., and moved for rehearing, arguing the corrected transcript showed the plea hearing had, in fact, been conducted properly. Esquer, 26 Ariz. App. at 573, 550 P.2d at 241. The court in Esquer observed, "When a question arises as to the correctness of a record after it has been certified to the Court of Appeals, an appropriate correction is proper, provided that a timely motion is made." Id.; see Ariz. R. Crim. P. 31.8(h). Because Rule 31.8(h) "incorporates the same principle" as Rule 75(h), Ariz. R. Civ. P., the court found Crouch's reasoning instructive. Esquer, 26 Ariz. App. at 573-74, 550 P.2d at 241-42. Relying on Crouch, the court concluded that, after an appellate court has rendered its decision, it "should not entertain a further proceeding in order to permit a party to do what he should have done in the first place." Esquer, 26 Ariz. App. at 574, 550 P.2d at 242. The court then denied the state's motions, emphasizing that the state had been "fully aware that the now-disputed portions of the transcript were the grounds urged for reversal by appellant in his opening brief" and had "had full opportunity to develop its case on appeal prior to the time the case was decided, but did not do so." Id.