based on a theory that he had committed robbery when after killing his wife he used her car to transport her body to a dumpster and still be the hour in the car and get it after the killing the felony murder former would have discretion to impose any sentence that was available for murder but couldn't post natural life as well and the ordinary minimum for felony murder predicated on robbery in this case would have been twenty years the consider pursuing the death penalty in this case for six or seven spittal timidly decided not to do it and then it continued to proceed towards trial the pretrial period took about two and a half years here and during throughout it everything that took place negotiated guilty plea to one count intentional murder in exchange for thirty five year prison sentence he did not file his clean motion and he did not take a direct appeal which leads to the first close to those a supreme court decision are second stage proceedings we have to assume that all of his allegations of fact are true but didn't the trial court consider both the pro se post conviction petition in addition to the amended post convention defensively ruled out and again i believe his thinking is i could at least gotten the stuff in front of the jury and and perhaps but she's something and then the other thing was that he thought he had partial affirmative defenses to the knowing and the intentional murder of you know self defense and intense provocation so the hope both were kids his theor and weaker argument perhaps something that would on it's unclear if occasion i would think of the second stage here in which didn't happen here and the other thing is that she is this kind of bizarre mistake where he alleged that counsel also pressured the have been presented to a jury and they they might testify and i'm not really saying that the defendant is entitled to jury nullification but there is a posse might have chosen to take they at risk if he hadn't happened terrified move contrary to my argument on that basis which say that if you don't take a direct appeal then that for future doesn't apply however this court has never said that the owner supreme court has not it's never  your choice for them to take a direct appeal or not and it's your choice whether to file within thirty days of post trial in a post on plea motion it's your decision it doesn't matter whether you don't take a direct appeal because you don't follow that post in motion or if you don't do it and this is not even as stringent as strickland that if you remember the original ruling says no two defense attorneys were handled case the same and you were not required to add things which were not in by the defendant consulted in again and i need to change something and more importantly the defendant was asked on the record and the defendant about the six fifty one certificate if it was correct if the representations network for and i would say if you look at the paragraph regarding their video in the amended it talks about how the original defense counsel used that in order to get him to plead to times right can't do here given the facts or a plausible defense and usually keep the question of whether prejudice exists depends in large part upon the prediction of even sixteen years he got thirty five years which is fifteen more than the minimum and twenty five less than the norm maximum and they are going to you could get a life of issue with the first few bribery by taking your own property from