petition after it had already allowed post conviction counsel to withdraw scowl from due to a conflict of interest and yet failed to appoint new counsel to assist mr jackson in further post conviction proceedings instead a granted counsel so at that point the trial court determined that there was a conflict of interest and to end it use the term conflict of interest no but he said that that that he would leave counsel in his duties because of the quote unquote unhealthy relationship and so therefore knowingly and voluntarily waiving his right to counsel but up until that point mr jackson had continuously asked for the appointment of new conflict free counsel even on the date that postcondition counsel was withdrawn from the case  and instead of doing that the trial relied on the conflicted out attorney's assertions in his career motion the anesthetics fifty one c certificate then vaguely sad that at the next court date mr jackson would either end up with a new and a new attorney that i might to dismiss your petition or something in between the court not only violated mr jackson's right to conflict free counsel at second stage for the remainder of the proceedings but then on the next point they entered in order dismissing mr jackson's petition even though the state never filed a written motion was ever actually filed by the state and in this case no such my motion was filed and and a written motion makes sense for a few reasons the requirement that a written motion being made makes sense because of satan enters motion or a friendly motion because it gives postcondition count so essentially a way to tell the boy i cannot rely on any of these statements as my obligation to the court repliers however it's not defense counsel job to argue against mr jackson's petition it's it's the state's job it's a state's job according to the act and according to the rules of a procedural due process for the claims but again we're talking about a scenario where they were going forwards to discuss the filings made by mr jackson and the green motion and then the court was going to take it from there mr jackson had no opportunity to properly a motion to dismiss being made granted by the state but in this case and in people versus gear no motion was ever filed and so that at that point the the court is without the power the legal power to reached the second stage in this case the trial court found causing prejudice this was excessive petition so we're not in a situation like a real situation where it was the ninety day rule violation that brought them to second stage that would make more sense to allow the the court to dismiss based on fingerless nyssa that point but in this case the court already found that there was enough merit to reach to allow for the or well they did the trial court found an unhealthy relationship and i would i would kid i would contend that that he late to a conflict situation and again we're talking an abuse of discretion standard that's rather hide it they're just like in this case the trial court then dismisses that the titian and i would say that this case is just like that maybe even worse because on the thirty first the trial court didn't give anybody any indication what it was going to do with all courts to remember that the protections of a defendant's procedural due process rights during post conviction proceedings are of critical importance and we contest that he did not receive the procedural to process rights he's afforded either under the actor so that was the first point i want to make and then as to the merits of the claim this court it shouldn't consider the substance of merits of the claim and for good reason because again this is a again we don't know what could have happened if mr jackson had been given proper postcondition counsel to assist him further in either amending his petition or in investigating other cla the assertions that the that the petition is without merit it can't be can be taken because again postcondition counsel had had been removed from the case due to this on healthy relationship  and just one final point the fact that he again with the with the mayor i mentioned earlier that the cause and prejudice test had been mad and in fact the question of whether graham ocean can be granted or filed at all in a situation where the cases reach second stage based on the merits of the petition which i would say apply in this case rather than the ninety day rule violation is currently pending in front of