well appointed post conviction counsel failed to avoid procedural default by making a routine claim of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel in her amended petition i tell me what your prejudices i'm sorry  prejudice the prejudice is that that richard my institution was not adequately presented to the court but i will say under turner and suarez there is no harm was there  analysis analysis here so we don't need to get we don't need to look into prejudice and sparty your aspect in the state has not challenged at it anyway but there was real harm service to mr milan because the trial court trying to make sure i understand your position there gets to your position than that that even even if we were to deem the underlying claim to be meritless or we should look to see if the underlying thing is m sixty one see and hear the specific allegation of unreasonable assistance the violation of six if you want to see that we are making is with regard to the third responsibility that after consulting with the petitioner commission counsel make any there's a whole body of case law that holds that that six fifty one is satisfied if if the if counsel had a plea percents the procedure petitioners claims well can we extend our review to the point where we could say that even though this was not one of the petitioners pro se claims if you raise another claim you have to do it well limited legal up legal knowledge the present petition only needs limited to tell doesn't need to clear all the legal analysts might not be aware of all the facts that are necessary and the petition needs to be under the rule adequately present exactly this we have to remember that we have to assume that postcondition council on the first requirement of sixty one c consulted with richard mylan to determine what his actual pains of constitutional deprivation not so she set out with them and said ok you know you wanted a lawyer way or making the statement what exactly do you mean by that and it's the lawyers job to take that into frame is probably there was a complaint to the effect of this is trial counsel for failure call witnesses and then there was a stuff about the forensic test testing my understanding is that was that and so yes and i think that's a i think are we in a position where we have to say oh here comes your softball here and no we have to say that that under six fifty one she has to adequately present the petitioners pro se claims and a lot that came out of six fifty one is a new claim that came it came out in the amended post in which there's right or wrong i think it's a new claim but the nature of the claim was a change in the law she was trying to get  and so therefore she just knew if he actually present them or should we take children she would take things one step further and say well frank this is a new claim but she did find it and she did present it she just present didn't present it well and should she have presented it better i would disagree with with tough on the first one as she's not required to present new clients she did present a new client a new claim she presented was clearly crafted in order to avoid having to says even if you don't believe me and you know i can accept this in very conditional language then it would be bye bye waiver because it could have been raised on direct appeal i'm not really sure what counsel should have done given that when she filed in many posts conviction titian she she she should have raised the police station claim and also raised the claim that there was ineffective assistance of the l a council for not previously waiving and that's what she should have done i  of the two cases that she hung the newness of the claim on because they didn't exist and that was but i guess implicitly when the circuit court rejected the claim if you know what this case is i know it derives from an old something in the six fifty one  just quickly or owners to be clear this issue is not restrict have our while the umbrella issue of whether the motion to suppress should have been granted was raised in the appellate court the specific legal reasons for that  including that it was coerced that it was the result of trickery none of those included the claim here that defense countered that the the attorney who arrived at the police station was not allowed in south of richard  island so even the trial court recognized that the particular claim raised here was not raised on a p r and so in fact it was wait and i would just argue that the is nonetheless entitle to reasonable assistance of counsel and says this would do harm to him if counsel raise an issue but do not put it in adequate legal form and again there is no case law dad to testify regarding the fact that he had been represented while he was making a statement so that issue of did he was he entitled to a lawyer while he was making a statement is sufficiently connected to i was making a statement and i couldn't see my lawyer than under pro se standard which is our looking at here in terms of what it how do we look at this pro s no that's not there's nothing there but you might have something regarding second degree murder and even though you didn't say anything about second degree murder the court said a strict construction of the defendant's petition is inconsistent at the initial playing that richard mylan made before he was able to consult with the lawyer and fully explain maybe he was unable to do it in writing but once he was able to consult with his lawyer and talk it out he realized that's what he really was trying appeal was a different claim they were forced to sit the claims regarding the motion to suppress that trav the first was that it was obtained after he specifically after richard mellon himself invoked the right counsel which is separate from whether he was his attorney was denied access to that it was the result of trickery because he was told come on in we have we have a suspect in custody but actually they were wanted to interrogate him the third was that it was  of professional conduct because the police knew him to be represented already and the fourth was that it was called worse because the police trying to take his children away macaulay the issue of that was not litigated  ok thank you thank you very much i will take this case under advisement and i'd like to advise everyone here the judge will grant him as part of this panel and she's ill today but she's probably listening in and if not she certainly will go