interview whether while those trial counsel attempted to interview heather ryan or why and and whether trial counsel failed to impeach the state's witnesses with their felony backgrounds all objections to these questions were sustained as the issues were not contained in the pro se titian post conviction counsel even asked quite low if there were issues other than those discussed in this testimony and raised in this petition that the course stay in the objection stating he has to stick with his claims this court should remain for a new expand in this petition during the evidentiary hearing when it was simply too late the three requirements roll six fifty one c do not exist independently of each other independently of each other they work together to ensure that  petitioners claims are thoroughly discussed examined and amended into proper legal form the first duty is consultation post conviction counsel must comply with the statutory duty of consultation to help understand  position as allegations and deprivation of constitutional rights here this consultation apparently occurred because post conviction counsel was aware claims that were not contained within the procedure petition but were known to white low i duty to him in these claims learned by consultation into the petition what would even be the point of this consultation there is no limitation the consultation be only on the issues in the petition that is it is to help understand  will form there is also the duty to examine the record at least those parts of the record relating to claims phrase in the pro se titian as the state argued in her brief post conviction counsel is not required to come through the record for issues that are not contained in the prostate post conviction petition but when claims come to the counsel's attention during his review council may and then the petition he has the permissive authority to do so to make the petition complete and in this case at some meritorious enough to raise at the evidence rehearing these claims should have been properly amended into the post conviction petition and they could have been supported with additional evidence such as police reports affidavits or other documentation post convictions counsel post in this case defendant is making a huge jump in logic when he argues that the post conviction counsel was aware of the additional claims for consultation with the client's six fifty one c certificate states that according the six asked questions at the evidentiary hearing does not mean you failed to include issues in the petition that defendant wanted in there nothing in the record indicates this it appears if you look at the record it appears that felt failed including snit's in the petition in fact the state is arguing that post conviction counsel actually provided a level of assistance beyond what was required of him noteworthy is the fact that counsel never once asked for posting diction counsel questioning trial counsel justice about whether there were additional witnesses who defended had asked justice to interview or col how that came about this justice testified about his investigation his investigator interview between five and eight witnesses from the apartment complex including the apartment manager the woman who was a source of friction and several people who might have seen a white driveway post conviction counsel then ask if there were win the case without her therefore and also the statement attempted to serve her in the address was not good her proposed testimony was included in a police report so all of this information was or to impeach the state witnesses with their prior felony convictions there is nothing in the record that there is a pretrial discovery order but nothing in the record that they actually have that should not have been put in the post conviction petition and found i believe that defendant is attempting to make an issue out of something that's not that point the fact that he later was second guessing his own their own us his own preparedness on this case clearly rebuts the presumption of that six fifty one c certificate that he himself was willing to put aside to read to read view this you can see that he's somewhat confused about this case but he was so unclear on the pro se issues here in gregory white nose petition that he failed to include issues he believed were meritorious issues he clearly wanted to advance he didn't put them into the petition in proper legal form that doing them to fail and that failure isn't reasonable assistance it leaves us with a record with so many holes in it that it's hard to assess these issues so i think the best unraised argument that we know of here is the issue of whether ryan or wyatt she saw three young white men run away from the scene and two young black men drive off in a white board or truck it's very similar to mario stows testimony in that he was selling drugs to we've already had the state's motion to dismiss we've already had the state's answer at that point the issues are set if post conviction counsel had one of these issues raised the responsibility was to raise them earlier and proper legal form in the petition so the state had an opportunity to respond attempting to raise and see the spontaneous equivalent of doing nothing if these issues have merit they need to be properly amended into the petition post convictions of preparation this clear again he's attempting in you see it several times in the record well i think it's part of this issue i believe you can put it under this issue and the trial court is very clear that's not what those issues posted t proceedings thank you thank you this is