our final case every day is black men versus the secretary of the department of correction looks like we're still waiting for counsel it please the court i'm richard summa i mean represent the appellate gregory blackman in this appeal we argue that mr blackman received ineffective assistance from the state appellate counsel who overlooked the trial barrier to advise black men of the dangers of joint representation and failed to obtain a valid waiver of the right of conflict free counsel this error was contrary to the well established law of the supreme court in the holloway case the court instructed us that the dangers of joint representation include what the attorney may or of joe doing and those dangers in include the possibility of row and i think you can imagine your honor that a person in that position is has an extremely high in sense and or motive to  error that in which reversal is automatic and that sounds holloway type issue is as to the appellate counsel and there was no objection so you don't have a valid climb unless you can point to the actual adverse effect on the trial counts in there's nothing in the record that the appellate counsel had nothing it shows an actual adverse effect on the trial counsel is that well to begin with i the jack sion voiced by the two defendants was to being tried in a consolidated trial because of the evidence that might come in against each other that wouldn't otherwise come in that was the only dissatisfaction they had neither one of them ever said i object to being represented by the same attorney who represents  somebody to loyal only to me or anything approximating the only objection voiced in this was about that one or both of the co defendants was i don't want to be tried jointly evidence will come in when another come in the district court's response to that is no mr blackman you're being tried is a principle it will all come in so there was no objection to conflict of interest don't representation and seventy six and you're here representing her in this case correct no i'm representing back so what good does earl's earle's objection that a conflict of interest might harm him most blackman was not at the scene of the crime so and there is a history of the prior attorneys withdrawing from the case due to conflict adventurous both the  counsel said there was a conflict of interest and nd counsel said there was a conflict of interest and even that the jury selection proceeding mr blackman's attorney never said there was no conflict of interest he said there was a way of her or the prosecutor himself said i have this point i think would be wise to put on a waiver of the conflict of interest so everybody recognized there was an interesting question in this case should boil down to state to testify for the state it's very likely and this is a case where the state needed corroborating evidence no doubt it's very likely that he may have been able to negotiate something or agree to lesser charge nd success react in the back to the robbery and provide the car operation in that state really would like to have any case like this because there's no identification of the suspects directly  realize that trial counsel should have discussed the possibility of negotiation or trial but he realized it afterwards and that that gave rise to a claim that in that held accountable should i'm talking about after the appeal was over after that the hippies on charging him comes after all of that over he could go i think that may be possible but i don't think liggett is restricted to only that one i think i think the proper than what you're asking us to do i assistance of appellate counsel i believe their law is that he doesn't have to show that if he got a reverse a sage shows a reason probability of a different result on feel it gets reverse he doesn't have to show he would have been acquitted or convicted of a lesser offense on retract that's it now ok so the then the question is if he had if he could have pointed holloway violation on direct appeal in the record that is somebody objected are tantamount to object in the district court did nothing that would have gotten him a new that so he says but at the pretrial proceeding one of the pretrial proceedings one of the pros one of the defendants did say something that is tantamount to an objection about the conflict of interest risk now what's your response to that that record was not thought state courts like us to judicial notice of anything and everything and they and any proceeding involving the cases that not correct what is not correct in florida opposing counsel's argument that they raised a conflict of interest in that pretrial proceedings mr earle mentioned that i don't know who did your asking me questions and it was not mr martin all right this suppose is so your your response to his argument that that was if it was before the court adequate to raise the holloway issue is no because he didn't do it somebody else did what he said was well m are mentioned in the briefs that blackmun file or that were found on his behalf before the d c i don't think the for that reason scorcher for objection that is required under the holloway case does not have to come from the lips of defense counsel there are other means of getting it on the record  when the prosecutor asked to get a waiver of conflict of interest on the record that constitutes an objection under holloway this court has a case on that point and the case is called i understand are you are let me ask you this are you arguing that th supporting that ok i thought i thought that the transcript of the hearing free trial on the motion to consolidate was attached to that petition if i'm on my briefs but i would simply written my point that the objections of conflict of interest are clear on the record that was available to the appellate court and maybe his petition and i thank