ge proceed mr tilley entered an open guilty plea all counts with no consideration for the prosecution in this case after his attorney failed to move to suppress the statement he made to the police after he so we've argued those first two remedies you know three turning to the first argument each claim of ineffective assistance of counsel presented a substantial substantial showing of the constitutional violation that should have advanced the third stage of receiving his first is the a different part of pick up pick up the pills in the meantime the police have set up watching that location and they arrest about it during his time at the police station that night both share both sets of police are present and after they're interrogating him about the pills that they found him with and and the robbery when he invokes counsel they stop asking about those things and they switch to say ok henderson that makes clear that you can raise that claim as long as it's bundled together with counsel's representation on the field and that's to say argument is that an effective attorney would not advise his client in the stakes of what they're facing and that's to say mr chilly this whole that he's been consistent throughout in arguing that he did not intend to sell the pills that he's a drug addict that he's for personal use it's quite a lot of pills but they're subdivided by so it's not only a lower sentencing range plus one for first class acts it's also the minimum automatic sentence you must serve of it is lower as well and that's quite a different range so it goes to counsel students of properly mean doesn't sam the proposition that you can never challenge issues that pre dated the guilty plea it says that you have to challenge them within the rubric of house's representation on the i think that's an important distinction that also brings me to an issue that that kind of connects the two arguments here the argument one that the should go on the third stage an argument to that we need for their second proceed undergoes six fifty one c the state has made a fortune argument th by saying no attorney would have advised his wife to plead guilty given the miranda violation those are two different ways to frame this argument the problem here and the basis of the state's forfeiture are is that the pro se the initial pharmacy to get them so i agree he may well last that trial but it's certainly he has a chance there and i don't think it's it's an unreasonable chance of success the argument is that the confession that the statement to the police is the strongest evidence that even though there is some other evidence remain but that that is enough to provide a substantial showing of prejudice at the second stage which is that lower standard you need to reach here there's also a good time to claim that we've we've discussed a bit and i say this case to become the gigs i think these two biases mutually reinforce one another certainly as prejudice but when you combine these two these two arguments there is a substantial showing that not only you not only having known that he faced seventy five percent sentencing instead of fifty he might have gone to trial but if you knew he had a chance to pursue a lesser included offense of simple possession by only going to trial look at how would the defendant have fared at trial if he had not taken the fleet and there's some of that in this case with that with the sentencing ranges but it also talks about a category of cases where because of  the because of counsel sufficient performance the defendant didn't properly understand the process of what was happening in the field he didn't understand what was at stake and pleaded guilty and that's leastways that that's not a purely out of the t past that case involved an immigration issue that's not of issue here but i think mr chiles in his misunderstanding of what he was going into falls into that category of cases as well there's also the outcome to turn these but there is a process of pieces here argument post conviction counsel did not satisfy the requirements for the sixty one c we don't have a presumption of compliance because it has certificate record but there's also no other affirmative showing in the record a substantial compliance i think people versus mason th quote no statements on the record from post conviction counsel clarifying whether he spoke with the final about his claims of constitution that ration were viewed the necessary records that's absolutely true here as well we simply don't have a permit of showing on the record of compliance record that's not the same thing fact that he said the goals of what he wanted to do the future does not provide substantial compliance that he actually accomplish those goals there's an inference the state argues that there were two book post conviction positions in this case  just in that case the state works backwards from that state to say well if that's true for the other case then by filing the petition in this case you therefore must use all transcripts and that's that's what people versus wara says we difference because this were found that by citing specifically so many pages in the record the seek counsel was but specifically acknowledging specifically showing that he was familiar with the record that's not true in this case the other case the state side su people versus owens and iowa supreme court case from one thousand nine hundred that was a third stage most mission proceeding today that's not applicable here and one of the key things that her relied on there was evidence that was presented contains two three claims that defendant made in his proceed petition the one that it did not include was one that was refuted by the record and that one was the one that defendant wants claims into the exception stated that we were dispute your eyes was discussing or attacking past making cuts to fill claims that allege ineffective assistance based on the advice that counsel gave defendant to plead guilty and therefore that can be something that a defendant can claim because it goes to the voluntary intelligent character the guilty  in failing to file a motion to suppress under this court's decision and id also even if we were to address that claim there was no basis for a motion to suppress because the nature of the questioning and counsel had consulted with petitioner by letters and it richardson argued that the certificate was insufficient to show compliance with the rules consultation requirement and the appellate court and richardson disagreed saying it's in it's reasonable t not mean that the rule was not complied with of course and doesn't warrant reversal of the record other way shows compliance is as the rule states and of course we relied on certain statements made by counsel and and take that many bills through the factual claims that are taken to be true at the stage of the second stage of proceedings so it has a relevant what the state personally believes we take those claims to be true and they're on the in the record that mr chili was taking up to twenty or thirty pills a day he is an addict he can take quite a lot more of these dangerous drugs than someone off the street was not use to those who are patients but in addition these arguments about the number of pills and how many pills per day would go for how long how many months those arguments are taken from the briefs in the state forfeited its chance to respond to those arguments and briefings so these arguments are new and oral argument  proper advice at the police age to go to trial to take his chances for this much better sentencing range and fifty percent sentence he might have lost the trial and gotten worse sentence but it may about reasonable for someone to sit the situation to roll the dice and try to convince a jury vs mason which held up without statements from counsel or clear evidence of further record evidence on the record of substantial compliance the case had for the second stage proceedings and i and i agree