said he went after being in the stands house he went to another party so how was this how does this add up to anything if you can't really establish that he would have been in fact an alibi witness after all it was testified to a trial by the defendant ever that his father was asleep the fence said i went to my father's i spoke to him i asked him for money we're conversation my father said he didn't have any money and i left the father's affidavit says he said today so he also said that he thought his the prejudice prong that we just discussed in the previous case but you have a situation here where the defense lawyer was aware of the existence of the witness aware of the fact that his own client said that this the defendant's father was drunk in the end made a tactical determination that this was a witness he did not care to present in the case and so the argument that somehow he failed to investigate the reason why his father wasn't there is really undercut by the that and we also remember this defense attorney in opening statements told the jury that mr sutton wasn't there he went to his father's to borrow money then the jury hears mr suddenly say it but they never hear the father say and even  corroborative testimony even if it the timeline doesn't fit is something that auto allow this case to go forward after direct appeal after post conviction relie alibi witnesses i think we i don't think there's a dispute that this witness was if you don't think it's right and when the shooting occurred it was the closest they're right because he is fifteen minutes away from only some of the defendant himself said after he left his father who he thought he prove cause your own brief says you can't prove cause well after more tears i can prove caused by the fact by that martinez but martina's is stream a good law for us but it says you brought up the fourteen one petition with a b s od the first petition what all these things have a common is and this petition he's there are circumstances where you might be able to raise my direct feeling but it's typical that not only could you in this case it was raised maybe in a different articulation in the first post conviction petition of of the defendant he let's hypothetically be generous here we'll give you cause worst crisis or the threat is that it was the most important of his alibi witnesses because it's the closest one to the top one is the most important one the the alibi d with what the rest of the evidence is in this case a out for harassing phone calls about the threats about the identification of the step daughter saying this is my stepfather who came into our room and shot me and shot my mother and the witness who puts him on the scene at the time and fails to note the presence of a computer being removed from the trunk which was the defendant's a sensible justification for being there after he had been told that no one certain terms over the course of several days that this woman wanted no contact with him whatsoever and having with him the big logs and the face mask with the eyes cut out and all of those things are very you know the question is whether the  testimony of the drunken father would have would have made any difference to any reasonable jury under the circumstances let's ask the prosecutor this case what it would have made a difference if the prosecutor circuit thought it did the prosecutor hammer the police officers she went through photographs and identified it in the in the face of that you're saying that it's still so prejudicial that he didn't call his father to testify and the defense theory was that she  transcript where there's more evidence than the defendant's guilt and you found here it's a single witness identification right i did not say that this didn't happen out of the blue it's not like he was some random person who broke in trying to get a stereo and started shooting this is in the context of a domestic disturbance then he was very upset with his wife because she wanted a divorce you can eliminate all that evidence from our consideration here and that we're talking like we're talking about martinez are federal and yes corpus cases they're not they have nothing to do with post conviction we're talking apples and oranges here martinez that's the federal gateway for a state criminal defendant who's attempting to get federal analysis of this claim it's not a second petition it's not a success of petition it's federal  simply do not apply they are not constitutional decisions by their own terms they are equitable decisions they modified the definition of cost for purposes of filing a federal agents corp there's no parallel so they don't apply here even if they have applied here which they don't but even if they had they don't fit the situation martino's is limited to states where a defendant has to bring his effective assistance claim an initial review collateral proceeding that's not the law in illinois as a matter of fact under illinois law if you have an effect ineffective assistance claim and you don't bring it when you could be which is something that could only be received your motion from trial proceeding in an appeal or as is usually the case you know those big but the point is that he certainly concedes this claim is absolutely defaulted to federal cases he relies on as supported by the miller case offer no support whatsoever establish cause if in effect you never had an attorney represent you and bring ineffective assistance claim and the u s supreme court said there are two reasons for that first of all because texas courts and texas supreme court is actually directed criminal defendants bring your claim on clay to review and also because under texas law it's virtually impossible to raise an ineffective assistance claim in a typical direct appeal that's not the case in illinois the illinois supreme court has never directed never directed criminal defendants don't bring your claim until your clairol petition no but they have said and we have said that if you're relying on things that are outside the record of the trial that you would be better served by bringing it in a context where you would be able to supplement the record which would be in a post conviction for example honor that's absolutely correct it's true that if you have an that affidavit or outside evidence your defendant you want to admit they have to submit that to the court it has to be by way of a post conviction petition but if you don't need x or evidence to his father was drunk or i said in my record of court in my notes he says father was stronger asleep he couldn't offer any support the defendant already had four l by witnesses testify for him his father if he had called him would have heard him to to call somebody who was making credibility would have actually heard this case and furthermore it's well settled that which witness is an attorney decides to call is a matter of trial strategy enter stric unless unless we are persuaded by your rather articulate arguments here in your brief and in front of us today that were compelled to follow martinez even though it's federal habeas corpus law shows and i think what opposing counsel said shows how we don't have meaningful review of an effect this claim in illinois without when a counsel if you bring it up and direct appeal and you're not going to have all the facts in the record the state's going to say no you don't have enough facts that record you wait to