and trial counsel disagreed as to what happened the court was under the impression the trial counsel wanted the videos to be admitted and trial counsel saying on the record that he disagreed he thought the state would only play certain parts he didn't know they would play appointed and potentially put trial counsel on the stand to give his sworn statement as to how he handled the case since the trial court would not accept his on sworn statements so i think two things are important here when we agreed this was on counsel another thing i think is important here is if the roles were different but mr garcia himself had complained about what trial counsel did i think it's indisputable bit the court would have found the trial possibly neglected the case under the crinkle standard so these complaints were pro se complaints and the crinkle standard applied the court would say this is possible neglect on appointing you know new counsel critical counsel to help flesh out these claims for the record however the times it was counsel himself who complained about his failing to keep the videos out it puts us into a bit of territory so right now the districts are currently split as to whether a defense attorney require prejudice when the per se conflict does not however in establishing prejudice for an actual conflict of interest the defendant was not have to show that the conflict contributed to his conviction but rather he has to show that the conflict at first three affected the interrogation video mr garcia references his prior as time in prison i believe just three minutes and counsel doesn't make a single objection and the evidence being proper evidence just keeps zealously argue ineffective assistance and that was to establish an actual conflict so mr going to see his asking that this could remain and so the conflict free counsel can be appointed so with his record can be fleshed out especially considering the fact that the trial court trial counsel disagreed as to how these videos came in and especially in light of the fact that the court wouldn't consider counsel's unsworn argument built the only limit here was for counsel to withdraw due to a conflict of interest  court explain three separate categories that constitute per se conflict those categories include when defense counsel as a prior contemporaneous says you should with season with the victim the prosecution or an entity unfavorable resulted and we do not want a situation here because there is no tie to third person or entity there are no competing interests at play and therefore there cannot be a conflict of those interests if there are no competing interest the supreme court has also been careful to limit the categories of per se conflicts of interest with respect to austin and while it doesn't necessarily fit neatly into one of those three established categories it is undeniably in the same vein a this the supreme court was referring directly to actual or excuse me it was quoting about actual conflicts as opposed to per se conflict complete lack of any explicit allegation of ineffective assistance of counsel holding quote we will not transform counsel's acknowledgement that the air with the jury instruction was not raised at trial into an allegation of ineffective assistance  issue the second district has found a person a conflict of interest in this type of scenario but their district appears to be really the only district that has examined this into the light of an says well regardless i still in the court are you both are you going to put on some evidence no i just think it's clear it's just so harmful in prejudicial that the court will how does that happen trial counsel well i think what should have objected i believe that but i think that and in the court i'm not going to get all i'm asking why didn't she go and hear counsel says well i wasn't sure what the contents of i had some idea i would be in the video and i think