he knew he was facing a classic sentences for more than one offense did he not to be he had an attempted murder conviction along with the controlled violation of controlled substance to establish prejudice the defendant has to show that but for counsel's deficient entice he or she would have accepted their clear offer and all we have here is his self serving testimony and the point of my question was he really in the family waiting testimony he knew that he would be facing a very lengthy if not  testified that he felt for the first time the photos all before natural life when the state so informed him because prior to that he relied upon information provided correct now fully aware of what the ramifications of the sentences are i mean at the time of the negotiations nobody nobody had any idea about this natural life sentence so we're all operating under you know a false sort of agreement pardon me i mean there's nothing that we can say that would compel the state to offer him anything offered a finite number of years for reduction or an amendment were we ultimately going to judge pretty much said it would have been closer to the high end of the thirty plus thirty rather than something around twenty six or is he said his attorney said i'll get it down to twenty see your position is despite the fact that the state is relying on the defense attorney history to rely upon the state's information that the defendant has no  potentially it was a it was a really she could have gotten anywhere in the range with this statute it's natural life or nothing so it's not as though he was you know even if you know you're facing ok maybe maybe is i'm convicted maybe i will get thirty that's different than say if i get convicted and get a natural life so that's a different mindset i think that you have to find then when you're trying to decide whether or not to plead guilty i would never get out of prison but justice for can't talk to a couple minutes about the vigorous defense that he offered at trial i mean doesn't that also mind support to the view that he really wanted to go to trial rather than accept a plea welcome to the group presented its plans but that doesn't mean that he wouldn't have pled guilty had he not and had he you know what he was truly facing and that's i think the problem is yes he decided to go to trial because is all the shoes that were raised or could have been raised would have raised that issue post trial he knew that his attorney who was conducting please go she actions was not aware of the fact would yes he did but i just i guess i would i would suggest the score shouldn't shouldn't shouldn't at nine you know the opportunity to raise this now because he didn't raise it as i believe justice kept pointed out it was raised at the sentencing hearing and on the it was mentioned that is the first time that defendant and the state find out that he's eligible for the natural life that you criminal of but in addition to they had the defendant personally made good decision against his counsel's advice to withdraw his motion to reconsider  did not know so he forfeited bad by going against his counsel's advice and withdrawing the motion to reconsider sentence so no sentencing issues were raised in the direct appeal little there is evidence in the record there would indeed have certainly there's enough evidence for the defendant to raise that issue and he could have argued ineffective assistance and there are in defendant's appendix three plus pages of the train scripts which are included in the record on appeal the only missing working is the day when they were set to go to trial that is that monday when we would have known about the expired me in that it didn't go through that is the day when the reds is given leave to withdraw as if because the defendant received the natural life sentence in this case they did not pursue that it is not mentioned in the record on appeal it's not noted in this court's rule twenty three on the direct appeal committed those offenses plus the defendant testified that now twenty years for attempted murder he thought was it fifty percent ninety five percent so it's very clear that not only  is there a reasonable probability that the defendant way they have accepted the plea which clearly the record shows that he wouldn't but also according to him you cent the sentencing was in two thousand and nine sixty year sentence would have taken him to one hundred twelve years old in prison that does not include the eighty five percent or some credit for time the twenty six some more negotiations perhaps they could have come up with a better deal for that and even a forty year sentence had to state by some miracle agreed to that it would have made the more than twenty six or twenty two which was what he was really hoping for clearly you know all of his statements you know that he wanted to go to trial and judge james credibility finding that that is what he wanted to do it in hate that you know both prongs he would not have accepted there's not a reasonable probability that he would have accepted a plea the state would not have offered it the trial judge would not have accepted it for if you feel this is the information to mr abrams hypothetically there was still some water on the table counsel in trying to cut holes in adequately represent touche and made it impossible to make a knowing and intelligent person earning knowing and volunteering decision that's it six of six but that's contradicted by the supreme file and there is an affidavit from i believe a supervisor in the p d s office that subsequently reviewed the file and saw the investigators report in it so the defense counsel here had full knowledge he is serving a national life and he didn't know that he was going to have this possibility of that happening on its own just briefly want to address the issue with the transcript that the the state has mentioned there was would have been a trial we don't know what happened that day other than a rooms was discharged but again i don't see how that would prove anything here because at that point the defendant state of mind will still want to not knowing the action face natural life so even isn't that what he said i'm going to trial i want to i want it to go to trial he was going to trial on the idea that he was not the thing actually so i think that