e court sent it back and said if this if this man's attorney had not told what the offer was and he was allowed to start all over again let him know what the offer  is that he could make a formal decision this case mr and you did not know that there was no possibility of a felony charge the first time it was ever brought up to to his attention which he did not catch at the time was f p in the well just further down the same on in the same transcript you know when mr quinn the mr lerner said they're not going to refile this as a felony then it kind of backfired because the state then sa you know the judge cried up and said i assume you know this or something i need to know and then the prosecutor said well it turns out there was a probationary license based on our investigation it's not so much that would trigger a lack of license felony says this would not trigger the lack of biased felony charge the court said if you have any qualms with that to the to the attorney that's the defendant but to the attorney and the attorneys like you know he wants his court he wants this  testified sides and so it was made for the record that mr and yet the first time he ever realized he could not have been charged with felony was at the sentencing hearing when he went to a different prosecutor came in and she made a big deal about it she said you know i don't even see this piece of paper about probationary license if i would have known about this we wouldn't be here for twenty minutes and we would have we would not of waste the last twenty minutes and she said you know i'm not going to fight hard for a conviction leading one to believe that yeah you could have got court supervision she basically said in not going to ask for a conviction in this matter so that was the first my client heard that he could not be charged the felony was at his sentencing hearing and so then that leads me to th well i missed this question i should've asked as early should the court have inquired as to whether the defendant understood it to be charged when he said is there something i need to know you know he could have said well if you know are you aware of this that the prosecutor could not your lawyer just finish saying well in exchange they're not going to refile this as a felony you understand that's not the case he's going to stop everything and say you know or the lawyer could have stood up and said i need a couple minutes i need to tell my my client exactly what is going on here he's not looking at a problem so it's i mean but the transcripts reflect that it was absolutely the intention of the lawyer to mislead the client and say if you don't plead to this today you're going to be charged felony and you're looking at a year in jail and so it's  something i need to know the prosecutor said as it turns out there was no there was a probationary license based on our investigation well maybe maybe i over stated that terms that i would agree that i talked about in the mr lerner was being deceitful with this court the making faith that he was doing more for him than he was actually doing i guess i would answer that just because one you can't you can go backwards and look at the facts you can look at the actual license probationary license and that will tell you everything you need to know and the state was absolutely right to do an investigation and say oh yeah we can't charge him as a per gallon he charged there's no way to link this probably it was decided if they find out a split second before they enter the guilty plea is that long enough without the opportunity to talk to their lawyer to even to even perhaps to have anyone ask this the fact that whether he understood what was happening the only thing the only thing he had to go on to learn he would not be charge of the paladin was it was the prosecutors one statement that said it's not such that would trigger the lack of license felony charge  when the lawyer was standing there next to this defendant and the judge does not inquire too as to whether mr and your and yet was fully aware that he could not turn violent you know he took assistance of counsel can't be claimed to want a lawyer does not tell you it's not to tell you the facts back to trujillo it's you know if you don't tell your client the actual offer describe the fence well it's it just it took away his usage and whether to go to trial or not and i can just say that but for this attorney i mean i believe that withheld information on my client and but for that which goes to the precious he he would not be in the situation he said he could have gone to trial with a point zero eight i have the right clients where they have even over one all and i say go to trial bring in an expert to challenge the breathalyzer machine there are number of things and then when you when you hear the prosecutor second prosecutor at the sentencing everything was taken from the client where he he could make a decision he was not allowed to make any decisions in this case and if you would have but for this the information counsel's representations here briefly are based on the defendant's testimony after the emotional drug hearing and the trial judge found him not to be credible so i think the trial judge guilty and found that he was not credible at the emotion of it grow counsel is a as it were the advocate and made a great plea on behalf of her client but she kept saying or implying or coming up close to saying well you know you didn't know we didn't know until sentencing he did not tell sensing he was misled it's right here in the record before he pleads guilty as it turns out there was a probationary license based on our investigation it's not such that would trigger the lack of license felony charge the judge turns to defense counsel he doesn't have any questions he turns them to defend their answers do you understand that you understand the state is not making any promises to you this is the third time that the judge went through this