eighteen years a few months prior to the trial and he rejected that baseband gets filed turn it really is advice i don't think your honour's will have a record where there was so much confusion and outright forty half years in the next case the defense attorney fell on his sword and said yeah they offered warning half years i told him he was don't get probably around that anyway so you try and as it turned out the mandatory minimum  ers and so the hill court said well we're going to look at a couple things we're going to look at the sentence disparity twelve years versus four and a half years now that's a big disparity so we're going to we're going to call that one in the defendant's favor that's it that's a big believe there are two is in favor the defendant and so that event for those reasons there were others but for those reasons the court said yeah you know your attorney said he told you you're going to get some like the minimum based on that you said i would have taken the deal we're going to give you really pale was different and hail the defendant was offering fifteen years and the court looked at it and said there was nothing from the attorney in this case the record here that you're picking doesn't show us what the attorney had to say about the defendant that's the minimum and that i suggest is the key is the point of why i'm here this defendant thought i could get six or six plus six twelve at eighty five percent so when i'm looking in eighteen years at that time i  on a first time offender no one died here yeah we know and you obviously know better this these these crimes actually get more serious sentences than murder quite frequently but i don't think that's a common sense thing a lot of criminal defendants know when they are charged with predatory criminal sexual assault against minors so  in the order that i'm saying was manifestly erroneous the court continues to say the defendant knew he could receive natural life the defendant knew he faced natural life a few months before sentencing so they're not even taken th position in the court isn't that he knew you are going to get natural life they're taking the position he knew but if you look at this record we have attorneys we have judges those words still come out host  investigation defendant faces a possible life sentence so i don't think we can have michael on or hey you know you could get life four months before we can't we can't put that burden on him what's more intimidating to someone then speaking in public and then coming in for your sentencing hearing i guess i'll go to the states the main point perhaps which is leave me to give the defendant statement allocution he said something to the effect in the transcript and they jump on this even if i had known the outcome of the verdict i wouldn't have admitted something i didn't i submit the law can't hold that against him show if he says that the no circumstances were to plead guilty no matter what how does it cross the threshold of short prejudice based upon claims of inaccuracy regarding it wouldn't be as much of a dead bang winner if i had to say if he had said under under no circumstances would i plead guilty but let's say he said that he still was standing before the sentencing court thinking he could get a possible li he says not only do we see it throughout the trial he says i'm page s e c five seventy at no time was this defendant ever told at any time he was subject to life so life if you don't face that has not been communicated i like he said my feeling is i don't believe the record suggest no yes my answer to that is yes it's not been communicated to him so he making a statement an  evidence they try to settle this case is like hale because the evidence was not strong this defendant really tried to defend himself he retained experts he had evaluation he tried to evaluate children beforehand and cetera et cetera case this was the evidence was overwhelming so this defendant did not have it when i believe we all know you are accused to child victims you're probably going to be convicted hard it's an if you're going to get mandatory life in this defendant's testimony if you have an entry hearing along with that of his mother and i guess i don't think we should presume bias just because a defendant's mother testifies in his behalf and no one came in the say he was lying the defended the defendant's mother who were at the meeting with the offer was made and we have the record to back us up to show the state the judge throughout the entire proceedings didn't get it right i believe that certainly puts the ball in their court we carried our burden to the and so it is someone unusual it isn't it is somewhat unusual and it's a record as i started out saying he's very unusual because we know from the point of pretrial of arraignment and right through the sentencing everybody had it wrong until the defendant got hit with a natural life sentence as i said the defendant said no one ever told him i think the defendant i'm sorry the attorney's words on the record saying no one ever told him that he was subject to life sentence even as incorrect was a s about that there was no evidence that the prosecutor withdrawn the deal didn't come in and say that wasn't there nothing on the record that allows that as a reasonable inference judge said no that's not it what about the credibility  credibility findings could have been made without the testimony i think those credibility findings were we have a defendant sitting in jail for natural life and we have his mother yes they do have some i understand why natural bias in that situation but show me the impeachment show me where their testimony contradicts anything that came before is that the requirement w i mean it is clearly an unreasonable opinion so sure you can say the defendant was not credible but he there's nothing why not what do you believe now we have an attorney come in for the state look at what happened from the beginning in this very serious case this guy is told the wrong thing and the most important thing in it's ever happened in his life to face it run all the way through it secondly where's the defense attorney to come in and not i'm talking about the fence console who could have been called to testify about that subject as opposed to this whole record the i'm not strategic decision perhaps i guess again i don't want to go off the record well in a defensive unit effective assistance of counsel case where you're i mention they come in and testify but they don't always they didn't inhale and they often times hey my prior turn he the post conviction here i'm sorry to say they were never told told by whom the trial judge or the prosecutor in saying that it's clear from the record the defendant was never told this and as far as prejudice goes he if you are looking in the sentence disparity is the key here one of them natural life in a case you are not going to win versus eighteen years right near the minimum common sense dictate  is being made in terms of sentence defense attorney what recommendation is going on and then what the trial court says at the time of sentencing in terms of the sentence you know when does natural briefly on one of the last points counsel said mr connor trying to win over claim his innocence throughout the case is that something this is that would be something that's held against him i really think most defendants are i'll do that in every tr but more importantly your honor asked the questions and we did lay out the sequence of events with you're under stress chains in mind i'm page thirteen of our brief then it was found guilty on september thirteenth and that time it wasn't a bond hearing prior to trial they tried to re and then as i mentioned before the p s i said possible life in prison so this again is what this defendant is hearing and most importantly there was a hearing on the post trial motions and the prosecutor responding to defense counsel assertion that the court at that point had failed to admonished the defendant he was facing a possible life sentence and the state are you and i have it laid out there but at the end of what he says he says you don't have to tell him that judge basically i'm paraphrasing you not to tell him that judge i suppose i guess the defendant could argue perhaps his counsel been telling them and i said absolutely and that's why i'm here his counsel didn't tell him that the prosecutor said at that time it's a little different and i not casting aspersions but the words are very important what the prosecutor said at that time for the first time about life is quote it's only once he's found guilty of both of them that it becomes a mandatory so then we go to the sentencing and that again is when defense counsel says and i couldn't have done better at the sentencing hearing than this quote defendant was never admonished obviously in the pleadings or at the arraignment obviously in this case or at any other time that he was subject to a natural life sentence and defense counsel argued further in response justice here is to your question the defense then argued that a life sentence was not and september thirteenth no the subject too is not mandatory life but that's not what the defense counsel quote you quoted the french counsel saying he was never told he was subject to ma the point is that the defense counsel got it wrong well isn't that important i don't think so i mean are we going to hold michael connor when there's still an argument going on about what he his sentence is going to be we're honestly how it was that it was sloppy when a man we're going to hold the defendant to his statement in elocution to that oh well you knew you were subject to a life sentence so you better not say that you never would have pled guilty i mean if that's what they're hanging their hat on i really think this