client had several opportunities to address the court during the course of these proceedings about dissatisfaction with counsel and then at the end of the proceedings did he ever raised the specific issue if the issue wasn't raised on direct appeal and there are good reasons for that not a direct appeal an attorney excuse me a client has a defendant has an attorney who will have the time to go over the record and raise any possible issues in this hold on and get some kind of an explanation but we might expect that but i don't believe that my client was given an opportunity to respond and and courts obviously don't you don't look well  and ask about this i mean one of the things about the crank crank laundry is no one asked about the advice that the counsel gave and that's the crucial issue that's raised in my client's conviction partition so would it positively rebut no it didn't question the affidavit is is substantial i mean there are lots of issues that are raised there but we also have to look at the record don't wait to see if those allegations are in any way rebutted by the record and he says several times when he's dissatisfied all i got you know i only got discovery i don't know if you referenced that she yelled at me when i asked a question that i know was in the affidavit but how can we take those allegations and look at this record and see that it or find that their the affidavit actually does  the record i think it's i think it's actually the opposite the question is whether the record positively rebut stepha data and doesn't need to have specific corroboration and i wouldn't i would i would forty five years and my client have some background that there were low level felonies although he was a young person at the time and so this is this might not be a minimum case probably have a close to minimum pace and the eight  many of the questions well i do have one question and although i know that the recent people versus robinson case addressed a success that it titian's successive rather post conviction petitions which is a lot to say at this hour of the morning do you see any relationship between that and the classic you know that there the record is sort of king petition are you aware of any movement throughout the court that might also be looking at this nd to rd stage proceedings i think i mean if i recall the descendant i represent the people of the state of illinois we come before this court this morning to ask your honour's to affirm the trial court's germination that the dismissal was proper at the end of stage two primarily we would disagree with the defense in that despite the fact that i think that the trial court put it more in the backs of forfeiture i think we believe that  is pointed out that the defendant had every opportunity during that cowlick week to say anything he wanted in the trial court clearly was prompting counsel track and clearly was prompting the defendant rebutted isn't that a logical extension of your argument i think i think it depends on the circumstances and there may be circumstances where there this true i think here it's entirely true because the trial court did not really give the defendant never to nitty but was actively prompting the defendant to present any complaint that he had for counsel i think that if you have if you have a judge that would be fantastic i have been a discussion between the lawyer may have volunteered this issue about plea negotiations but it had no relationship to what the defendant alleged and pro se complaint about the  well i guess when you're in during that discussion the defendant kept saying she didn't do anything for me she was supposed to get rid of the ex and she didn't do anything for me and the trial court talked about her challenging the weapon in the trial during the course before the jury and then he said what else what else bothers you goes well she did that later she didn't do that before before she was constitutes a positive rebuttal of an allegation in a post conviction position you know i don't and i think it's funny to get i'm sure your honour's understand that we discuss things that are opposites and we're going back and forth about that me off but the basic truth this they're all manner of things that occur but ultimately become the law you know one of the most recent ones is the military says alabama but during the course of any of our legal careers we had all manner of things become law that have been law previously and i think this is one of the situations where given that i apologize given the nature of the trial court's discussion with the defendant and the trial court to real invitation to the defendants to put anything before it that in fact was damaging to counsel representation i think where the defendants chooses not to avail himself of that opportunity there should be legal consequences for it well they can fall into forfeiture would you expect us to hold that silence positive rebuttal of an allegation in this tape a situation where the trial court has been actively prompting the defendant and where defense counsel makes and makes them if there is sion that negotiations were presented to the defendant miss byrnes this mr krieger has said that this is a pre prank call hearing and essentially i think it probably was but even though the judge was prompting and trying to get information did did mr cremer's client ever have an opportunity to actually ask questions of his counsel would that have been one of the issues that could have happened at this stage i think i think there was both a creek a pretty randall and a post crank the discussion about she didn't do anything for me she was supposed to get rid of the the ex's was the actual crank go after the conviction might have some savvy with other charges you know why did you say that i wasn't going to i was what did you promise that i wasn't going to be found guilty of those two charges why do we have to find that that's what he would have had to do know order to make a substantial showing enough to go to a rd state i guess because the the conversation at the crinkle hearing was really tailor made for him to present that type of a claim and so assuming that we're going to see rd stage hearing and in defense brief they talk about the rd stage hearing being where counsel would testify i find it hard to imagine the council will say anything other than what council said at the crankily hearing which is she remains an officer of the court but at that point she wasn't under oath washy no but i think there's a presumption that is an officer of the court when an attorney speaks to the court the attorney is comparable to being under  accepting everything you say is correct and accepting your analysis for the moment what the lawyer said is i gave him the offer and he rejected it she doesn't say why he rejected she doesn't discuss whether the rejection was a function of her adamantly indicating i'm going to win this even if we were to accept that such a good the what happened the critical hearing might support an affirmative or bottle or what you're saying is an affirmative rebuttal doesn't actually speak to the issue raised in the post conviction petition does i guess i would differ as to i guess i would differ as to the meaning of the issue raised in the post conviction petition in the context of what occurred at trial and after trial however i understand what this court is saying which is a concern for what could theoretically be viewed as a i don't necessarily view it that way when the defendant and was actively encouraged to discuss what actually occurred between him and his counsel but i understand the notion that one could look at it and say that absent a discussion about the reasons why he turned it down but again it must be looked at in the context of what was what came up at the crank at the actual critical hearing where he said she didn't do anything for me she was supposed to get rid of the axis and in fact the offer to him did have the ax is gone so i don't know from the people standpoint if it's demanding it too much of a defendant if she says we presented these if you reject it for him to say that's not what happened or to some way contradict because in fact there were two everybody agrees that there were two offers and that those offers were rejected the interesting thing is she i don't think she said and specifically at least at one of the hearings that he rejected that she said i believe there were offers made but they didn't take place that i think that i think more ambiguous sexing no and i think you're correct i think it was then in the judge questioning her i think it was the judge who said and he rejected them and then she said yes so i think i think your memory is correct but i mean i don't think she was very specific when she she made when she answered the question only upon questioning again the judge trying to i think be fair you know then she said oh yes yes but it but again it still doesn't raise the issue that judge brennan has or justice brennan has talked about which is she didn't say why i suppose it's like when you talk to your children and they say well i didn't lie to you you didn't ask me that question the questions you asked i answered but you didn't ask me that what i mean i don't i would i would take our jobs a bit more risk seriously than that and then dealing with your children and asking the right question and again i think i think i go back to where you've got a trial court who is actively discussing with the defendant what happened and why he was unhappy with his attorney i think that that opportunity has to mean something how that changes the fact that you know he didn't he talked about so many things in various conversations throughout these proceedings that i'm not sure how st that  judge responded got to forfeiture but i'm not sure how we get to the fact that there hasn't been a substantial showing i think it's interesting because when you're talking to counsel you were talking about a fairly recent supreme court case which unfortunately i read and no one to recall because you know and demick brain but i think that i think it's very hard to analyze nd stage in that you're still it a pleading stage and so things still have to be taken as true and you know again perhaps between pandemic brain and having done this too long when i read something where a defendant says oh yeah my attorney told me that she was guaranteeing me an acquittal and like who says that nobody there but again nobody here can say blatantly and spaced that that's an untrue statement because that would be a credibility determination right but i think that whether it's stage one or stage two all assertions within the petition with the b affidavit so have to be taken in the context of the record of the whole and where you have a trial court who is actively trying to allow and encourage the defendant to make a record of the manners in which he was will is to in fact bring one's complaints to the trial court's attention so the trial court to church can determine if there has to be another step taken or more than one step taken but if the defendant is not open with the trial court then the truck or it has no way to effect ameliorate what may be a legitimate  complaint i guess if you're under seven a further questions i would close and say that we believe that the trial court properly don't see how there could be a limiting principle as i said this is a preliminary crinkling creators no counsel present i don't see how a at this stage without the ability cross examined we could argument about defendant silence what would prevent a defendant from intentionally or deliberately not addressing the issue only do as a matter of strategy hope to get another bite of the apple later because on these issue he well it was never  cause the procedure at that stage could ever cause you still would not be recommending a for your rule even in that context no i don't think that it would be appropriate i don't think there's any authority for it even with a critical hearing  this morning we will take this matter under advisement we will render a decision in due course we will stand adjourned at this moment to prepare for our next case and again thank you very much for your arguments