In People v. Jarrett, 372 Ill. App. 3d 344, 867 N.E.2d 1173, 311 Ill. Dec. 187 (2007), the Court expressed concerns about both the analysis and remedy in People v. Whitfield. The Court determined that Whitfield should not be construed as a wholesale approval of the practice of decreasing a prison sentence by years of MSR in every case where the defendant may not have been fully admonished about MSR. The Court further noted that "the court in Whitfield did not choose to reduce defendant's sentence by three years because it found that three years of MSR were included in the maximum sentence, but rather fashioned that remedy in an attempt to 'approximate' the original deal between the State and defendant." Jarrett, 372 Ill. App. 3d at 351, 867 N.E.2d at 1179. In Jarrett, this court further noted as follows: "If the facts were the same in the case sub judice as they were in Whitfield, i.e., if the case before this court involved a fully negotiated plea, the trial court never mentioned MSR, and the written judgment did not reflect MSR, we would be constrained to follow Whitfield. See People v. Flatt, 82 Ill. 2d 250, 261, 412 N.E.2d 509, 515, 45 Ill. Dec. 158 (1980) ('the precedential scope of a decision is limited to the facts before the court')." Jarrett, 372 Ill. App. 3d at 351, 867 N.E.2d at 1180.