meyers his trial counsel even noted that he believed that the issue here was a cognitive issue and not a language barrier issue i'd like to know but the state argues that evidence supporting a lack of formal education  arguably nonexistent here however the crux of the issue here is that counsel thought it was an issue he amended the claim to add any issue then didn't support the issue and so now this court is left with the appearance that the evidence doesn't you want to see a trial in it because it's a rule it goes back regardless of the merits of underlying titian and in this case in particular it's not necessarily frivolous issue because there was no evidence presented on the show if the complied with that nd stage we don't there there are three limited things that must be done but there's no such language for rd stage so how do we move it into a rd stage with specific ta its decision which doesn't even address the formal education cl complying with that counsel wasn't able to  understanding this defendant was not determined to knowingly involuntarily have waived it resulting in a lack of his education it wasn't revive it perhaps if the good or bad we're we know that attorneys and not pros they play as i understand it wasn't done in this case but attorney i doubt proceed pleadings very often just to pacify their clients so are we to so i would i would make the proviso that you have to present evidence or defend we have to show that that there's nothing in the wrecker why would defendant have to show that regarding everything that was raised in this particular situation but we also have overwhelming evidence that defendants confession was no involuntary when we had we had two separate attorneys his st attorney  not only did i speak with a vendor over fifty times but i indeed had he worked for me previously so not only did i speak with him in the context of legal cases but i spoke with him outside of court where he and his wife worked for me and he never requested or needed a translator i talked with him and i talked to him that we then have his new attorney when we go over the case so he knows how to clean house or he interpreter i want to take a chance of making the same accusations against me i never use an interpreter we discussed the case we discussed sisters interpreters never use despite the not i after going over multiple times with the fam and there's he added even additional things to me he didn't point out anywhere where i demonstrated that he didn't both understand and able to speak trial judge that notes that he's also interacted with a friend in open court and the defendant was able to respond to him appropriately so the question is trying to show something he tried to the extent that he could and again i don't know why we never know completely why an issue is raised into what nuances to the ecstatic that he apparently felt appropriate he did question because i didn't feel that the it was appropriate that presumes both language issue but also the lack of understanding or you know i again i think an analogy is if you walk into a target or a big store and there's someone working in there stocking shelves and you have asked that question and there's a you know hav interviewing officer and the defendant about hey you used to work at a gas station that i can't get to all the time so there was a discussion not just you i came to the gas station and defend name any more than was already there and again as i said i don't know if you could find thirty i mean i don't know if any of our you know th or th grade transcripts would be readily available i'm certainly not sure again it wasn't disputed so council didn't need to go further or to argue that you know indeed he did it but it's his bird i mean it's the petitioner's burden to show that there has been a substantial at this point a substantial violation of substantial lack of something and it's not the state's responsibility to step it is it won't wait a minute we are question at all what we've got more information the more information should happen now for all of our people the less she felt that he presented enough to support that claim but again realize that the evidence was overwhelming against including you know it's hard to find the need to present evidence that isn't supported by the facts of the case and the facts of the case including he engaged in conversations and discussions with the fact that those conversations and it post conviction proceedings defendant is entitle to only a reasonable level of assistance which is less than that afforded by the federal and state constitutions they then go on to talk about nd and  stages but they never talk about prejudice these of the reasonable reasonable that's what's the issue there i think the issue is simply i don't know that any court unusual nature of this arrest the i kind of did bring that case and because that was a case where the court said that ok and we're analyzing swara as we're analyzing what and when you need to say well if we raise reasonable ness you don't have to demonstrate strictly and there are cases and again i've cited a profit as well where ever profits rest in the line of cases that say even more than happy for this court to analyze that issue address it and publish it and make a final in one way or another to address exactly what that issue is but you know the people would submit that yes reasonable  rights are even available and so then what you're saying is the failure to not present the grades in what you learned in the th grade was not on reason i'm saying if you do that he doesn't have to present transcript he doesn't have to present something and here we have nothing to wipe it in i understand that this is questioning the record but in the end unless some issue is going to be a lie by the record the record here indicates that he was communicating with the trial court he was well in the truck or believes that it was a no win communication so how that's how it comes out that it wasn't something that could be in the record in this case we have a significant record of the of the communications between the courts and the defendant the counsels the lead attorneys and i defended the police officer is there a bridge that you know that's not what i'm looking at particularly at that part of the record says that he talked to us about these things he on the he understood us and he did not ask at this point when i brought in the interpreter for the interpreter to participate in any way how do we disregard those things i think the key here is that i see highlight that he was able to communicate