it please the court counsel i maureen williams representing andrew edward in this matter the standard of review is whether the trial judge is factual findings were against the manifest weight of further a review of the report of proceeding demonstrates that the defendant was neither coerced nor did he entered his guilty plea without a full understanding of his rights the it's tenfold the full understanding of his rights in the fifth grader could tell my client what his rights were so we focus on it and we can see that he did understand what his rights were as far as whether the defendant was into entering a guilty plea because it's our position that andrew was coerced we believe that the weight of the evidence and the factual findings were against the manifest weight of the evidence said you have to plead guilty and you get no jail time or you go to trial balloons and then you get jail time there's no in between there is no well this could happen or this could happen first of all the fact that hear about it she led him to believe by her silence that that no jail time meant no jail time and then when she says if you do go to trial you're going to lose and then you're going to get jail time it's i don't know what are i don't know how that can be seen as anything other than co bronze yes your honor because my client was saying you know there's a video there's a video that was show things you can you can get the interview you can interview others i wasn't there or he was telling her i did not do this and she was the reason she was coercing him is because she didn't even consider what would happen if she went to trial if she actually look at the evidence she didn't have the police reports she didn't have his explanation of the facts she spent between five and ten minutes with my client  it's it's more serious in my opinion because a battery cannot be taken off the record with an expungement or a ceiling the only thing he can do is ask the governor for a pardon and i understand that the public defenders are extremely busy and they don't have a lot of time for each client but my contention is she should have just and honest she should have said you know you can if you if you accept this offer or let me go back and see if indeed the court supervision or if you take this offer there might be no jail time here but it might kick off something over which has will county just just honestly it's the person that he can only only she is is the person who can protect him be his advocate and instead of doing that she's just telling him also and then when she turns around she says well or you can go to trial you'll lose and then you're going to get jail time first of all a lot of people go to trial when they should lose they win and vice versa you still know it's going to happen she could have easily gone to court trial one and the other thing is informed he shouldn't just be looked at as a number and said i got five minutes for this kid i'm going to you know just tell him whatever he's going to whatever i have to tell him to make him go away let him think he's going to get no jail time and then i'll get him to plead guilty you can't i always tell my clients the beauty of a mr manners you can go to trial lose still the court supervision you have no no reason not to go to trial  quite so concerned about the probation in his will county what i need or what i think shows that that my client was coerced is just the fact that this public defender just blatantly she was meaning gassings she was just saying you will lose and you will get jail time the other one a bomb had to have happened if you went to trial guzman was  related to the state's offer and must candidly advise the defendant concerning all aspects of the case including direct consequences of accepting or rejecting the offer she was not able to fully inform the facts and law because she didn't know the facts i've had cases that have taken a year year and a half and we still don't know whether to go to trial because it's a waiting game relating to the state you must candidly and by is the whole crux of this case that she did not candidly advise but the thing concerning all aspects of this case she didn't bring up court supervision she didn't mention it's possible he could when we could dig his video we could see if we can do our case a little bit better word first of all from step one maybe would be helpful she didn't say you could still be court supervision even if you lose it's  wrong to say you are going to get jailed if you go to trial is absolutely taking away the option of going to trial so for those reasons we're argu was sitting on it he forgot about it and move misplaced he was getting ready for retirement the state's attorney reminded him of this he went ahead and filed the the order i believe like on the last day of his when he was on the here i said whatever happened in that case judge grant took it up and he said there was an order in the file it was just never filed so that's the reason for the delay so in support of this claim a deficiency in our briefly address a number of those the assertive ripley council did not learn his religion of the facts in which he did not take the time to determine if his case should have gone to trial at the eviden assistance on her part then also asserts that miss can be incorrect advice but the strength of the case in the fourth district in case of b n as hell that a defense attorney's honest assessment of the defense case cannot be the basis for different counsel that sort of thing to fit cannot show that he was prejudiced by the council's performance rica's his probation it has will county could have been revoked regardless of whether or not the event played give the in his case