here please the court counsel my name is maureen williamson i represent thirty brightness matter i come before this court to ask this court to to correct  she's forced to get in the car he practically kills her when the accident occurs she ends up with severe bodily injuries mainly head injuries and the right side of her body she when she read when she's finally released from the hospital she's the one charged with the dui because he's no longer policy planet they end up with a with an attorney that takes the last of the life psych savings only to spend the next four months the entire four months that he represented her telling them that they're telling daddy she has to plead guilty that's the extent of his preparation for the trial the baby after four months and no you know willingness to plead guilty he gets daddy and his mother and her mother into his office he has a week before trial he knows it it's time to do it it's are in there he's got daddy in the room she takes it to mean i'll be electrocuted she doesn't know better she only found out later when she was in prison that other women who have done other things or they were worse than her as far as she was a wrong is just of the possible penalties correct she was she was not told what would happen if she was only to punish regarding what she actually lied to she was alerted to the possible penalties if this came back to life if she ever if her plea was ever withdrawn so she knew that there was a chance she could be tried for homicide reckless homicide but because she couldn't get the word pry out and respect to the reckless homicide wasn't she it mohnish when those charges were filed when she appeared for arraignment point it's i don't know the answer to that but she knew she had serious head injuries and she was not at that time when she was first arraigned i believe they found her on that it was later a year later i believe where where she did the killing and dr killian decided that she could go to go to with the trial if she was if she had an advocate if she had someone by her side explaining things let me ask you about that i thought dr william basically said that she would be able to participate on to the exam if she wanted to negotiate a disposition that she would need grates if there were a trial but if there was a negotiated disposition i don't recall him mentioning  breaks an advocate could be provided at trial the judge knew she about this report and he went forward with with accepting the we regardless could but it was really  i'm just move on the part of attorney was to me got to the courthouse he was talking to dottie she had shut down she knew she was she had to be she had to plea in order to avoid being electrocuted she knew she had to do mother kept saying what's going on what's going on the secretary said you just shut up they get they had words wolf didn't like that his secretary was spoken to that way and he had her pan from the court room the mother she would fry but the proof is in the fact of first of all it's it's she went for months along with her family her mother her brother saying no no please i'm going to trial even on the way to the courthouse after she had shut down her brother had said do not sign anything you're going to try on the proof that something happened to get h all of a sudden want to plea proves that he said something and the magic word was fry he knew it when he said it and her eyes got big huge ass he even said to a secretary isn't that right she would cry now other person oh absolutely so then you look at the you know the other thing that the judge did not believe she said she did not know what the word crime well she was properly admonished the judge fall the proper procedure except that because she thought she was going to fry based on what her attorney told her that's why the plea is not intelligent correct it was not intelligent we made it might have been voluntarily made she did not know the consequences of going to trial she believes something that totally was not correct the other thing the mother in the court room the other court room judge  rush did not believe that but the proof is the plea went forward if this is dellinger really was in the courtroom this we would not be here it would have gone to trial  is the record reveals and she would have stopped this but she was she went out to make a phone call to her son and at that time when she tried to go back in the court room that's when the bailiff had its arms  it's all we can do is presented it was it your burden it was my burden what was your burden to prove that the attorney to me wouldn't be an actual standard that burden for post conviction third stage to a constitutional violation to prove the constitutional violation didn't fact occur mr and so with respect to the mother being held in other court room the evidence that judge matsch heard was that she couldn't even identify you that was is that right well i mean that's correct he she have said all along i don't know what he looked like he was wearing a brown uniform you know this is the day her she's trying to prevent her daughter from taking a plea and she swallowed or any other evidence offered for anyone who happened to be in the courthouse and live seen this or observed the confrontation or any part of this was anything like that offered for judge rash no there trial if she wasn't sandbagged and and made to take this plea out of sheer fright she could have had a jury she could have had a right to testify she could have had her relatives testify as to her habits how she drove like an old lady out how steve always had to drive drunk without a license to fast she was denied that opportunity he has the attorney had an obligation to investigate and come to a reasonable decision and he did not he did not do anything he did not interview any of the witnesses he did not craft anyone this is he did not prepare any document he prepared one document guarding the blood alcohol he did not do one step towards a trial so his back was up against the wall he knew he had to get a plea because he was not ready for trial and former coun testify at the post conviction here in quebec and so judge ranch basically have to make a credibility determination as to whether or not he believes former counsel or your client who turned from others that her and her brother did  you believe he believe this attorney or my client and this is a an attorney who did nothing to prepare for trial he spent his entire time telling his client to plead guilty when they said we're going to trial if she would have sat through the trial like a bump on a log she would had a better result than what she went through because the evidence the circumstantial there was no one that saw a driver who was purely circumstantial you could look at the body as you look at the evidence look at the medical records the autopsy the photos the vehicle you can look at all of it and say this is a rollover addling ols who was where because no one had a seat belt on  the evidence was there for him to look at and he didn't look at it he could have looked at in addition to her habit of driving like a grandmother his habit of always driving the route that that she that they were found she in if the if if this is circumstantial evidence and it rests on is it likely that he was the driver then if he had a typical habit of driving that route always driving her truck i believe it could have come in be there were two reports one from the illinois state police one from the travelers the illinois state police did not come right out and say there was no rollover they just failed to mention that they said travelers which said there was a rollover also identified your client as the driver correct but that's also taking into account that is that correct it is incorrect they correct but they also looked at what the state police and the state police report is already is flimsy because the two persons that that saw with her back both identified your client as the driver he did not say that she was the driver they were saying where she was positioned the one person says that her left foot was under the driver's pedal but you know if she really was going to slide over in the middle of a you know the state is so intent on saying there was no roll over if she really was going to slide over would she jump on top of steve if he's way over and the photos show this passenger seat was way over there and if she's found on top of him with her back to his chest and he is the one with the chest injuries he's the one with the crushed highroad there is reasonable  it or her for a trial now they had to cut the steering wheel to get your quote now correct that's that's what they say but they also say only her lower extremities were found under it so you don't believe they had to cut the steering wheel to give them out based on the record actually i don't know what to believe because i don't understand why they didn't take pictures of the persons in the vehicle before they were extracted it was taken two seconds it would have shown everything that we needed to see the photos support the conclusion that there was a rollover and the state if the state is so intent on saying there was no roll over to me that tells me they know that if we can show there was a rollover there's a highly unlikely chance that daddy was right if she had flashback she testified that goes with the one that those are the one place specs are the only thing that i'm absolutely certain of she has a flashback that she's in on the floorboard right before the crash she has a flashback that she crawled on top of state after this  her attorney told her no you're lying you were driving because you had a license  of mr wolfe stated that he wrote in her notes that she was the driver this is just blatantly wrong she never wrote that in fact she wrote the opposite this is a lawyer who goes to the jail after this after he blocks the mother out of the courtroom and he tells daddy i'm done with steel i'm not doing anything more for you because your mother insulted my secretary tom but the judge did the judge believe this anyway but judge rush also was incorrect in determining that daddy had presented to us that he did not have just had to raise reasonable doubt in conclusion that he was denied effective assistance of counsel her rights to a jury trial her rights to testify and her rights to present witnesses were taken from her she was going to plead guilty he he used undue influence to get her to that point he she was under duress when she entered the guilty plea she did not enter it intelligently shop and not know penalty range the facts of this case were very angry just it against the defendant and were especially with the attorney wolf's experience with judge brash decided that this was good of a deal as the defendant could get after negotiating failing to negotiate it further down from the prosecutor and realizing that judge rash was likely to impose sentence in excess of twenty years maybe as high as twenty six and case in those respects was eminently reasonable he was entitle to look at this circumstantial evidence that he received in discovery is overwhelming that the defendant was in fact driving and read and was responsible for this for these deaths and that the defendant's claim that she might make a trial to deny that she was driving and blame her passengers dorothy for driving was incredible and would not be accepted by a tri so therefore the defendant lacked a plausible tents and that makes it's when this court has sued you attorney wolf's advice with deference to his experience judgments his advice was within the range of confidence confidence demanded of criminal attorneys and should not be second guessed so also it's still not possible for the defendant to try to say that it is a rollover situation that the occupants had switched places because first of all the evidence is conflicting us whether there's a rollover at that occurred sarah chair terry parsley had investigated the scene determined through his positions and which they had ended up at after the after the collision to show that that would somehow support the defense and i understand the defense point they do not have the burden of putting on a case they can simply stand on burden of proof however when their claim is ineffective assistance of counsel that they are claiming prejudice from levi can hit succeeding on the merits of the trial is a very relevant consideration and if they present no case and just simply stand there with all the circumstantial evidence that she was driving the fact that it's her car the fact that she was the one who had insurance and the circumstances of leaving in underwear a house that she thought was evil late at night and those circumstances certainly lends the problem the highest amount of probability that she was in fact driving and that's what the investigation that churning wolf secured which is to talk to a medical expert if we was simply a  she had a very high alcohol level she was on also i think syrup oh and another psychoactive type drug who is mixing alcohol drinking with that going eighty miles an hour without stopping at a state highway getting   so i'm not sure what about the photos show that there was a rollover my recollection is that the parts of the truck had to be dismantled in order to extract the is i just come back to one fact even if it would not have been allowed in the trial the fact that that they were found on that route when the a excel aerated eighty two miles per hour in record speed because he knew when the stop sign was coming up if we look at past behavior like prosecutors and states then judges love to do past behavior indicating future behavior there is no way that he was the driver if we believe that she drives like a grandmother and that she went to his house without wanting to start it was evil she never would have returned to her house going that route if this is attorney would have realized that and listen to this family he would have been convinced she was not driving because a grandmother does not drive like that a grandmother does not go a certain route if she always went a different route he had he had all sorts of evidence at his fingertips that he chose to ignore ignore and it was like a tennis match everything that came at him he would say no it won't work it won't work it won't work and he thought completely to the state