will be relevant to all of the issues because they do all largely call us on the same factual basis but i am of course ready and willing to address any of the issues as your honour's my wish he entered this he entered it on the advice of his of his attorney that attorney was his only source of information regarding the evidence that the state was prepared to present against him neither danny nor any of the members of his family had ever seen any of the actual discovery materials in this case therefore they were entirely reliant upon counsel's representations as to what the evidence against him was as we have since learned however many of those representations turned out to be accurate or false are now as young as are where we've alleged a number of different misstatements that were made both by the counsel and by the prosecutor with the important to the ultimate question of whether danny would have pled guilty absent those misstatements and whether it would have been reasonable for him to go to trial system so what we have here are really fall into different categories we have statements regarding the injuries that were done to the victim in this case mrs gummidge and then we have statements regarding that exaggerated to various degrees the apparent culpability that danny himself would have had for those now as far as misstatements regarding the injuries are concerned this is very significant and we're considering the question of whether or not danny would play guilty and significant for a couple of first the most serious charge the daddy faced she repeatedly referred to a single person she said he did this he did that he did this she wrote some or so no your honor what she actually said was she said i only saw one person i don't see very well so  so your honour's in trying to determine whether or not he's going to be found guilty of a term for three murders danny keener has to determine did bruce lloyd try to kill this person now when you were being told that this person was beaten into a coma that lasted nine to ten days they had substantial bleeding from their head and face fractures on both sides of their face of broken on all of these injuries this sounds like an extremely severe attack  broken your honor i would say at least under my arm based on my understanding i think coming way understanding there would be a significant difference between a less than one centimeter fracture in a poke and bone particularly in terms of when we're trying to trial at the state's behest were slow told him repeatedly all he did was push the woman and she felt that we also have her actual injuries which are quite frankly at least i would say from a common sense perspective not consistent with what one would expect if an eighteen year old husky young man tried to severely battered a ninety eight year old woman and attempted to beat her it we know she was not in any danger of actually dying at any time we know that she only suffered these two very small fractures the only bleeding that she suffered was from a bloody nose now your honour's no one is suggesting and i do want to stress this no one is suggesting or would suggest said well no your honor what i'm suggesting is that it is not indicative of an intent to kill now whether or not it is a serious matter that some one hundred and ninety eight year old woman it absolutely is and always will be and notably even if danny had were  plead guilty will make a difference to that decision if he thinks that the victim was battered into a coma and suffer all of these extremely serious injuries where in point of fact what the medical evidence shows is says well your honor st of all yes i think that is an on reasonable assessment of the evidence but secondly and more importantly the ineffective assistance here is not in the with vice itself it is in the misrepresentation to the defendant of what the evidence was which not only impacts the defendant's ability to make some kind of a predictive judgement about what his opportunities are at trial what he should do it shifts his believe in what sense is going to look like it robs him of the ability to himself make any intelligent decisions about we're not talking about a misunderstanding here we're talking about statements nine to ten days in a coma she wasn't even in the hospital for nine thousand one hundred she went to rehabilitation after he had the hospital right she did your honor however the home you know but the reasons for that noted in twelve to one hundred and twenty the question of whether this person was beaten into a coma that's going to make a difference in what you think your sense of calculations or the question of whether you think your codefendant is going to get there and testify that he watched you go into that house right before this attack occurred even though you know you didn't do that that's going to make a big difference in how culpable you think you're going to be seen and how large a sentence you think you see the question of whether the victim herself declared that there were two people in the house which again the indicates or is certainly going to be argued to indicate that you were present and were in some way a part of this attack on this person is going to make a substantial difference in what you think that sentencing exposure looks like perfectly when you add in claims that there was going to be blood that there was blood found on your shirt that was going to match the victim that would somehow again seem to imply that you were present and a part of whatever bruce floyd did to this person all those things make a huge difference in what you think you're sensing ranges and what you think is to your benefit and in particular i me ask you this assuming that you are correct about the representations that were made in the statement that were made if it is determined that we're looking at a situation where he's accused of committing you know the beating so on accountability theory when you're looking at whether or not you're going to be held accountable for someone else's actions if it's determined that that person did act with the intent to kill that seems to really diminish the importance of these facts i feel your honor i think that actually points to the importance of respect because the decision that danny is making the question we're talking about now is not ultimately what danny when a trial this point the most he has to show is that he would have a plausible defense that it would be reasonable for him to go forward and go to trial and we know to that extent there are cases from both the illinois supreme court and the united states supreme court to talk about the fact that a lot of that also has to do with considering the benefit you've got even an incredibly small chance at improving your circumstances at trial it might for schriever of possibly getting a finding that there was not great bodily harm or severe bodily injury both of which are st louis porton factors in this case because that is what makes the census consecutive and it's what makes them serve today eighty five percent he's serving thirty five years right now if he doesn't even get the eighty five percent finding he's already i know i guess at this point it would be about two years away from being home the difference this makes it your sense an exposure is huge and all of those things relate to these statements and these claims about severe injuries to his governors they did not take place and that makes it impossible for him to adequately assess his case and to make a determination about whether he should or should not plead guilty and what he thinks the sense of exposures i bruce were committed attempt st degree murder then it appears danny is accountable for that but in order for danny to determine whether or not he should go to trial and challenge that he has to have some idea what what actually happened to him this is gold and what he's been i suppose that could have happened now according to the statements the prosecutor made both in lloyd's proceedings and then the prosecutors believe was that lloyd was the principal attacker in this case and so i would be surprised if they would choose to offer  actually had the relevant information about his case to be able to consider anything  know in fact you are operating under an active misapprehension of what the evidence is in fact there's extensive case are talking about this every hunch and in fact there's been a basis for withdrawing the guilty plea in this case danny could have considered the fact of going to testify against him we also put to consider what what chris how actually told police he could have consider what the other evidence actually did wish as the sentencing judge in this case found there was no competent evidence to suggest that danny ever went inside that house other than after the fact however in order for him to consider those things and make a knowing and voluntary decision whether or not to plead guilty he has to have some idea of what the real facts in the case are and in this case he simply did not because what he was told was simply wrong and we have the evidence in the record that shows that it was wrong  owners are aware we have requested two forms of relief from the alternative case we have argued in the st place that we believe that because of the many of the misstatements at issue here are stipulated to on the record and the evidence regarding those misstatements showing that they are misstatements is present in the record we believe that there is no need for further fact finding in order to determine that danny was in fact the night of the effective assistance of counsel and that therefore the appropriate remedy would be to remand this case for an opportunity for him to withdraw his plea however we do understand that there are also other allegations that were not fully represented in the stipulation and in so far as your owners feel that those may be more significant than along all the other evidence that there was a specific intent to kill but even if this were to find that he had a plausible defense to attempted murder even if the petition sufficiently alleges that also even if it finds that he likely would have been put it out this charge he made no allegation he had a plausible defense to any of the remaining charges and the record shows there was overwhelming evidence year sentence and so what's his best bet for going to trial would he have insisted on going to trial just looking at the sentencing exposure and say yes i'd rather i've got a plausible defense to the attempted murder of th  and that wasn't covered in the record as to what the sense would be on those of the charges that's my read the statute that was ineffective in two thousand and five and he would have given up the benefits of this plea because he pleaded that of course you've got a dismissal of the charge and the related case pretty attempted armed robbery of the camp driver which counsel's advice that that was mandatory consecutive would seem to be correct because of the sever used alleged erroneous advice goes to the consequences and we don't have that here so  it's an interesting case for many reasons but one is the defendant alleges not that the statements he challenges are merely misleading but that they're false and in determining th which does not require that the record show here evidence on which is base so the fed has a heavy burden to make a substantial showing that the statements are false and the materials on which you lie show at most that there may be evidence to the medical records they're only eleven pages out of the hundreds of pages of the medical records that were provided to discovery and it's interesting to hear opposing counsel describe what they in fact show he says he's not a doctor and  is so to look at these few pages of the victim's medical records from the st two days of her treatment and as your honor pointed out she was in hospital for four days but then she the record clearly positively rebuts the petitions claiming that it was prejudiced you don't have to go into the objective lead and reasonable question and i would note to the reason that i focused on the factual basis  ambulance reports which state that she was conscious when she was found we have the doctor's report which stated that she was not only conscious but combative during her examination are the statements false yes and the evidence proves that they are i would like to address the state's claim that the state one of the benefits that danny got out of this was the limited evidence in aggravation that was prevent was presented danny's sentencing hearing as already detailed much of the evidence  aggravation that was presented a death sentence in hearing was false it was these exact same claims that's better factual basis that we counsel stipulated to was a part of the record and was taken explicitly  judge kelly when he sentence standing in this case with danny have been better off if the actual evidence had been presented as it whatever the trial absolutely less evidence that west severe injuries were done seriously affect my assessment of how often described worse oh yes your honor i would imagine the difference between a ninety eight year old woman who may have been pushed down and may have dislocated her shoulder that is serious is not as serious as disturbing with regard to the various calculations and theorizing is about the sentencing range that danny faced the minimum he faced was not ninety years the minimum he faces if he goes to trial at least in place i believe an attempted armed robbery of a cab driver assuming that that were actually to go to trial and were could be proven the attempted armed robbery of a cab driver would have added in maybe five years to counsel noted below some of this misleading inaccurate evidence was presented as part of lloyd's hearings as well as far as why he received fifty i would assume it's because he is the principal and because he actually committed these acts i would also note your honour's that as far as sentence and here death came up with thirty five years according to the illinois supreme court the maximum that a seventeen year old non homicide offender