was a critical distinction that underlay the one sentence for itself and which williams will rise but do you said that the defendant bargained away any challenges to legal errors koreans in exchange for the certainty that it won't have to expend it's time and resources defending that sentence r p o used to it now record here the state also dismissed some charges right correct how many do you know probably be told during these this period so we're still on direct appeal so i think the state lightly cooked or more likely the parties might go back to the bargaining table and the state might still agree to dismiss the attacks but it's very unlikely that the state further re to the sentence in concession of lowering the range for the class one it couldn't reliably know that it was not going to have to defend that sentence on appeal i mean that that essentially the state it's a heads i win tails you lose situation where the state extends the benefit but can't reliably predict whether it will be able to reap the benefit that it derives from but going forward it's quite likely that the incentives created by the rule would make this state last likely to extend them or at the very least more likely to extend once generous sentencing porch to the building that he was giving up his right to express sentencing hearing and that he and he did not express the way that constitutional right to speech position is extraordinary because it would leave a defendant who pleads guilty it's the defendant isn't life without a remedy right i mean you say it's a difficult choice to decide in a situation such as we have the forest whether to accept what you know was an incorrect  incorrect ruling by the trial judge but isn't that pretty similar to what's done when there's a guilty plea decided on in the first place there's a way that takes place right is to potential sentences and whatnot so this you know there was a mistake made here it was what it was within the sentencing range and it was what was contemplated when the guilt made right so there are it's not like the defendant doesn't ever remedy he just has another choice do you give mood to vacate the guilty plea as a result of this or you say hey i'm still getting the benefit of my bargain in the first instance well chance that if there is an improper for certain seem fair to taken into account by the throat judge that there can be appealed without a motion of a keep the guilty plea i would of the agreement is there's a range of sentences from which the judge can choose is what the judge is going to be using some kind of discretion which you are going to be the same if this were a fully negotiated plea in the sense that  as opposed to park and go back to square one my father motion to withdraw and face all the sentences and all the charges that he faced before when he did nothing to cause the air that is present for those reasons that he does have an argument that the baby was not aware of those consequences the remedy would now be to reform the agreement in a manner that allowed him to retain the benefits of the agreement desire to withdraw forfeited those challenges and asked for a plain error review and it is true that in the appellate court we neither contested that error had occurred nor that it was not plain am i and so we have not raised that argument analysis or some combination of the two products in finding that in these particular circumstances in light of the evidence and the fact that there were allegedly two errors it was there but i don't think we can rely i don't think we can assume very heavily on the notion that certain religious jew process violations should not help the bar by rule six so for him the classic example of that would be if the trial court relied on to defend his race or religion actually left with no choice because you suppose even to this big the defendant doesn't want to withdraw their guilty well you know they did get the benefit of the bargain they got a sentence within the range mistake or no mistake made by the