today in this case there are too many times in the record where if the transcript did not identify the name of the particular attorney acting at any given moment it would be difficult to ascertain whether it was the prosecutor or defense counsel at trial he bolster the state's i did if occasion evidence while failing to meaningfully test the circumstantial evidence of the case he also displayed a lack of understanding of either the law or the charges throughout all stages of this proceeding these proceedings lost their character as a confrontation between adversaries and there cannot be any confidence that those of of when he was deficient or if we that if you look at the state's evidence mr moore testified that one day after these events he went to a lineup identified my client mr williams as the man who had been involved in the offense and at that time he recognized him as someone he also knew from the streets he thought his name was little girl he didn't know anything about him otherwise he'd seen him around from time to time but he recognized him at a car gate defense counsel then in opening statements said this case in a case of identification you will hear evidence that the the victim identified my client that they've known each other for many years and in fact that mr moore recognized williams voice during the events themselves in the car he then in fact feel that this was based on a mistake of fact he stated at the close of the state's evidence that he believed that moore had said that he recognized williams from the card game despite the trail court's repeated instruction to him that that was not correct and not even a fair inference defense counsel persisted in that was illogical it might have made sense under what defense counsel seemed to support as the reason for this evidence being that the victim had a motive to falsely accuse mr williams but he failed in his attempts to prevent to present both of the evidence evidence that was necessary to pursue that theory because he was not familiar with the law all he did try to claim that in a valid claim that mr moore may have been motivated to falsely accused mr williams because of the evidence of  asked him the question where you had a card game and did you over here mr williams claim or mr moore claim there was a dispute this question called for hearsay the trial court properly sustained it defense counsel never followed through lack of credibility in moore's half from the prior conviction and at the same time he repeatedly elicited damaging information that the trial court used to rely on to find mr williams guilty it was what he did lee asked several defense witnesses to talk about over the relationship as they knew between williams and moore and they presented evidence that they had seen each other on social occasions and talked from this evidence the trial court made the inference that more knew well th williams knew more in addition to mr williams only knowing and addition to mr moore only knowing williamson it doesn't prevent them exactly and that's how the trial court relayed on and he specifically said i find if you look at the evidence that there's two offenders in this case only one of them were a mask it corroborates mr moore's identification because it makes sense that williams would have tried to disguise himself in the process defense counsel also elicited evidence that mr moore had said that one of the offenders in the car said oh lord we're going to have to kill it not only to defense counsel get out that he made the statement in court he got out that mr moore had made the same statement to the police before trial so it wasn't  was likely mr williams who said that because again it was this mr williams knows more so once he realized that he thought he might be identified he pondered the idea of killing him and it's also interesting that in opening statement defense counsel had said he believed that the be in france could be made that although he was involved in doing something to the car in stripping it he still had not been involved in the actual events themselves they heard a different location and if you look specifically at ben's counsel failure to present evidence involved in stripping of car the are and that he had again it doesn't necessarily tie him to the events and the fact that defense counsel you really believe i think we don't know since there was no proper testing since we know defense counsel had a theory didn't present that evidence and if you look at again this is my gun marie had only said that she had seen a shiny silver good so her ability to identify that gun as involved in the events it is there's many guns that are shiny and silver so there could have been found attached to from their hands and i think i think it is pretty strong evidence on its face i think you also have to consider that montgomery was the same witness who claim that she made an identification in a lineup when that wasn't true and you have to consider that her testimony itself only described the gun as a shiny metal object i think this is why it's an ineffective assistance claim and not necessarily a straight up reasonable doubt claim because we know the defense counsel believes first of all that there was evidence he couldn't present about this van he was not able to make the arguments and presenting his defense and then we also know that when he was not able to make that argument he simply gave up on testing the evidence with were all reasonable inferences from the evidence as  prove that identification on its own in those same proceedings he failed to properly to meaningfully test any of this other evidence which was relied on by the trial court even though he tried to pursue a defense in that regard and then if you look at all of the other instances in the record where he just displayed a lack of understanding of the law even under strickland there if you consider what would have happened but for trial counsel's errors you can see media reasonable probability that different trial would know that you could not question the rest and all of the things that followed it simply by showing police activity he didn't know there had to be evidence that said from that at various points he was confused on what charges were seated so if you consider all of those factors in addition then this really was a breakdown in the adversarial process like as i said in the introduction there you can't tell at various points of this proceeding if it was defense counsel or the prosecutor asking the questions the trial court in its ruling relate substantially on evidence elicited by the trial by defense counsel in this case and also told defense counsel over and over again i need to explain to you that the circumstantial evidence is sufficient to convict and the train defense counsel kept saying it's not the heart of the that it probably should have made in this case but you have to fence counsel who wasn't presenting the evidence he believed necessary to test that evidence and so i'm saying there's no confidence in the trial court's ruling  level of a chronic violation and that's why we've made that claim because there was a breakdown in the process i also think under strickland this court can find the same analysis because there cannot be confidence in the outcome of these proceedings so i'm not asking this court to abandon strickland i'm proposing alternatives because i think we can satisfy both of those alternatives i think unless this court has any other questions no i'll save my t but i will say and a case where defense counsel bolstered the state's identification case and failed in any meaningful way to challenge the circumstantial evidence it transparent attempt to avoid the prejudice requirement under strickland which he cannot do there's no no prejudice occurred here because defense the defense counsel subject that the state's case to me adversarial testing to spite the strength of the case of the state's circumstantial  chris circumstantial proof show that the defendant's close proximity to the stolen vehicle and stripped the vehicle when he fled from the police he dropped the gun same gun that the victims identified as be regardless of what the court decided they had statement first of all they didn't go to any of the charges that were brought in this case so there was no murder nothing happened nobody was nobody was hurt in their fashion i would say that it did not because it was not attributed to the defendant and ultimately it did show that  this particular victim mr moore was probably extremely agitated and confused at the time of of of the carjacking and whether or not he should have been able to recognize the voice of the defendant or recognize his face from his eyes and nose is really irrelevant it's not irrelevant but it doesn't there's a reason why that could have happened why he did not recognize the defendant from his previous contacts with the find and there are reasons for that and defense counsel in this case that this was a case of identification and it was very difficult to to assail the circumstantial evidence in this case really wasn't that much that he could do this was  difficult case so he focused on the identification evidence and what he tried to show is that the reason this defendant was not recognized or was recognized by by the victim was because the victim knew this guy he had played cards with him in the past so when the victim put those two reasons he also tried to show that there was a an underlying motive to falsely accuse the defendant by mr moore because of a ledge a disputed a card game well that the second part didn't pan out because mr moore flatly denied that there was such a dispute when he testified on cross examination  however the second part of the identification issue remained that mr morris should have been able to recognize the defendant at the time of the of the carjacking because he knew him and his failure to do so also points to some sort of a problem with with the reliability of that identification at the lineup so when  called those four witnesses at the end of this case to show that once again and even though he was not able to  get into the possible motive for fosli accusing the defendant of this crime he was still able to argue that the defendant that that the victim was not able or was able to identify the dependent only because he saw a prior at a prior time now the under the strickland standard there's that leaves room for criminal defense counsels to make mistakes and to lose cases which happened in this case there were mistakes made affect the representation in this case defense counsel made the best of a difficult difficult case defendant has not been able to suggest a better defense strategy or a successful way to keep the gun out of evidence keep the victim's identification documents out about parents the car keys that were found in the defendant's packet out out of evidence or how to suppress the victims in court and line up identifications of to provide reasonably competent professional assistance and he did so because he filed a suppression motion conducted a suppression hearing made an opening statement cross examine each of the people's witnesses made a motion for judgment of not guilty or  primarily on showing the job that the identification of mr moore by mr moore was not reliable and as a flavor to it this gives a flavor to the entire case this was not a drink case this was not a jury trial so lawyer and at the sentencing hearing although the case was set by the lawyer shows up with no file and he concludes our response to the judge's question about the pre sentencing investigation  didn't have this file although the case was set for that day in the court the basically the court refused his request for a new all those things taken together according to your opponent while singularly they may not that was an issue he didn't happy he went to court without this file is that effective for a prison in the us i just because he didn't have a style and the defendant was sentenced i was in that counseling thing the judge asked him whether he had any corrections to be made on any any issue with the pre sentencing investigation report and he responded that i can't really say i don't remember i don't says the sixth amendment requires competent not perfect representation everyone makes mistakes including the lawyers who represented criminal defendants in this case basically defendant's argument just shows focusing on the first prong of strickland which is the performance prong and the quality of the of the defense counsel's representation we don't even need to reach that at this point because there was because there was no prejudice proved in this case the defense cannot prove prejudice because this is that extraordinarily strong case for for the people and therefore this trial was now presumptively unreliable and the defendant is not entitle to avoid the two pronged stripling standard which requires him to prove both performance and prejudice and has all the of circumstantial evidence was unassailable defense counsel chose the best available strategy here to take the next weakest link and that was the defendant's identification there was not much room to maneuver for  defense counsel even if the defense counsel had not made any of the mistakes cited by the defense in this case there is no reasonable probability that the judge in this case the trier of fact would have found a defendant not guilty that the statutory sites are in the conclusion and and i will just touch on a few points as quickly as i can the first is that the statement about oh lord we're going to have to kill him was one of the most damaging things that could have occurred in this case it and the problem with this theory of defense counsel and showing that he should have recognized the victim earlier is that all of the evidence and because of this prior relationship between them is that they had this relationship because mr moore was friends with williams and there needs to be some sort of you're going to be careful in an identification of the relative of your friend defense counsel needed that motive evidence to successfully present that theory and he was never able to do so and then very briefly on the circumstantial evidence what we do know about the circumstantial evidence is the defense counsel did believe the city and was important he tried to present a defense on that regard he was not able to do so so in this case where unprepared was demonstrably confused he did not seem to have an adequate grasp of this case from start to finish under cronic i would maintain this is a complete breakdown of the adversarial process under strickland i say if you consider the state's evidence because when he did do things it's similar to because last case he was active in this case but all of his activity elicited damaging evidence against the client or he simply gave up and he wasn't successful and is successful in this case and that has been found  defendant's attorney never mentioned any of that to the court he didn't realize that at the close of the state's case the trial court was the one to realize that he said i agree with you and point you didn't notice that the state didn't present evidence on these charges so that's another example of the trial court interacting to intervene when defense counsel did not understand the case so that supports our argument of the general lack of an understanding of the case this was the same trailer defense counsel did proceed initially on the wrong elected cas e and was repeatedly unprepared were listening damaging evidence in this case he did not seem to have a grasp of the law of the law or the facts and if you look at all of this in context it is relevant all these mistakes he made even those that he wasn't prejudiced from because the trial court obviously cured that when you look at all these mistakes he made in the law it's relevant to consider whether the errors he made for professional misjudgment were simply unprofessionalism or incompetence and when you look at all of that it seems to point to incompetence in this case he did it listed evidence used by the trial court to find mr williams guilty and that he did not properly to as the other evidence in this case there is a reasonable probability that a different outcome could occur under strickland and there's no confidence in