treatment and the fact that he was under duress from the what was outside the record in the trial court made the observation it was a fact that he was diagnosed with these illnesses and that he was on medication and he was not receiving proper treatment but the fact that someone is perhaps is hearing voices or something which would interfere with their ability to understand or hear what the judge is saying i don't understand what connection there could even be in a court room and hear well where the six of forty comply is what prevents that in this situation he would have had the opportunity to show what those illnesses were and the judge would have had an opportunity to rule based on the information the evidence presented to him he would have you mean to say he would have called an expert in adapter to the doctor down the fact that it may have been diagnosed with a mental illness there would medical records but even if the medical records show that he had an illness i don't see where that would have necessarily made a difference or indicated point the trial court questioned defense counsel and said are we going to be having an evidentiary hearing basically you know what's the plan here and counsel said that she planned to call defen record the record shows what was said in terms of the in managements and in terms of whether it was intelligent whether it was you know whether it he knew what he was doing and also in terms of whether he was threatened by anyone that was asked by the court and he said no decides what the what happened here is that those allegations get the amended complaint became accepted as true there was no dispute by the state they said they were you know they said we're going to just rely on the record we're not going to dispute that they actually didn't get your the defendant with no jail and from medical personnel i guess you know which would have been that you know i presume and also things were done with the idea that you know that if if they show something that would have helped to fit in this case they would have been sure they would have been brought in and presented as part of the motion or they would have brought in personnel from the jail to to argue that but you can't look at it and say well because there might have been something else this you know obviously there was there was no meaningful hearing here because it could have been something else had wanted to get get in and if you've got the records in the records were going to hurt your client why leave the allegation stand well i don't know that it would hurt but why not bring him in well if it is if i mean here it's one of the other either it supports his claim or in defeats this claim but if your argument is she i assume that her counsel was a woman  had gotten those records and they were contrary as an officer of the court if nothing else she should have withdrawn that allegation and salute but what if she didn't but willing to do it and then we should win on without any affidavit or without any supporting eviden what you've said before you send the state said that we lie on the record the record is what's in the transcript of the record is what is happened in court all of the things that happened in the jail not part of the record that's correct that's what we don't know but i suppose maybe what we're coming to is you know was this info i don't think you can take that and say that we don't know that there were additional facts not shown and if they have the case then that's more of a p had neither an affidavit nor the defendant present to testify well because in this particular case it was basically short circuit that whenever short circuited by the state's agreement you know if you will to the fact that there was not going to they still would not have you know an internet going further in arguing that this was not use of discretion in denying the motion to vacate we still don't have facts which show that there is a nexus between something that happened ten months earlier shooting at him and his mother's house and something that overrides what was said in court and what was that in court is there were no threats made to me to get me to plead guilty and they're still nothing to show that medications which he allege know as something that's something that was actually somewhat negative although not defeating the claim is not showing that he was lying about it but just showing something that you give someone you know some sort of help to the other side so i think we have to look at it as sort of the opposite direction of light now what is the normal is what happened here it was short circuited the process resulting in you know the way it was handled and then the pain and you know to be what i would consider to  must be made when the motion is first filed for a defendant to you know they are to the to the assertions he's making in this case we had a really unusual situation where there was no notary in the prison for the entire week that he that you know that really had to tell but in reviewing i only that really had to be done because there was a certificate and that's a different type of requirement that's obviously to get to the before the courts and you know and but it's not about what has to be presented in  there it was going to rely on the record which apparently was inconsistent and contradictory to the allegations of ferric which of course you were in the motion which you claim state was stipulated to so lit confused or here is the material issue of fact we each was not presented through any evidence whatsoever of my defense counsel in the trial court was correct to say that there is no evidence here so the next question is what is there no evidence because there was no evidence or was there no evidence