show that he suffered a prejudice as a result of the deficient performance and a prejudice occurs when there is a reasonable probability that the outcome of the case would have been different there are several instances in this case where our first instance where the defense counsel was ineffective in failing to support his verdict on the motion to suppress there are several cases and issues which the defined since counsel failed to address in the motion first issue is that the length of the stop the defendant argues in his motion that there is no probable cause to pull over the defined it based on the illinois field call code violation namely that the license plate was not a fix to the the defense main argument was so it is clear that he did not research this president before arguing because it would have clearly established that this was probable cause to pull over the vehicle defendant's consulate did not address was the length of the stop the officer had testified that the canine had come to the scene either he was either already there or it came to the scene shortly decided it was in it was in the supreme court at the time and if if the judge was aware of that case being in the supreme court at the time the defense attorneys ship them aware of what was going on that granted credibility what well i don't want to see credibility credentials well at that time i believe that the campaigns did have to go through it it would have to be approved and go through licensing and   the expert witness testimony was very persuasive that determination of the jury trial at the time based his expert opinion on whether the drugs for a package for delivery and whether the amount of drugs were sufficient for intent to live or the defense counsel did not object to the admission of the expert six to thirty years the lesser included offense is a class one which carries a sentence of four to fifteen years and is also a probation of all by not tendering that jury instruction the defense counsel  inevitably waived the opportunity for the defiant should be charged with a lesser crime and if there is a question of fact as to whether the fact that intended to deliver possession straight possession of cocaine would have been a more reasonable option than quit all over or guilty so that is another instance in where we believe that the defense representation fall reversal of the of the case the next issue the state failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant possessed sixty point two graphs of cocaine with the intent to deliver where there is no other into a shov involved with iraq and with us in the outcome of the case and so beyond that there is no there is no statement there is nothing that would indicate beyond the amount that basically had to deal with florida's florida had a checklist you know but can it even be used in this case given this far for ineffective assistance of counsel argument now ok there can be no prejudice especially this is a perfect example of trial strategy because strategy of theory throughout the case when it didn't know what possessed any amount of cocaine had nothing to do with the amount of cocaine in the deliver beyond reasonable doubt beckman testified next in this expert opinion that the amount of cocaine recovered from different as far as too much for personal consumption was considered amount for distribution or sale beckman also testif here i cited in people versus robinson that the quantity of substance alone could be sufficient evidence to prove intent to deliver beyond reasonable doubt and that direct evidence of intent to deliver is rare so or the jury instruction focus i should intent to lever and the defense attorney failed to present a lesser included offense of just straight session and state argues that that was the theory of the case that the amounted to no manner however the decision not to do that is a strategic decision based on the defense counsel's theory of the case this is a very sentence greatly he would have had the opportunity to have probation if he was charged on the lesser and for that reason it is a trial strategy based on their honest and research investigation and in this case we are arguing that it was ineffective for him to to know nick that that lesser state in regards to our second argument that they some paraphernalia associated with cutting and some chemicals used to dilute the product there is no case that i was able to find that