i did raise two issues in my brief however for purposes today i would like to focus on the first issue which i am suspecting is the issue this court is most interested in but if you have any questions about the second issue i would be happy when one a belvedere police officer walked up to the vehicle where the defender sitting in the driver's seat and knocked on the window and at their point of the roll of the window down the officer detective the order of alcohol and things progressed from there evidence from the time of the nineteen on the window would have been suppressed and there would have been no evidence however that this is actually the scenario that happened here is an example there was actually given in people view women as an example of a consensual or stimulations defining the field if i got in this case on appeal as a proper stipulated bench trial i would probably be here today arguing that the evidence well two things one that the evidence was not sufficient to find a defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt and two that defense counsel was ineffective four other things that she failed to do which included stipulating to inadmissible hearsay and not challenging her client's statements on the grounds i think their questions even from what we have here and even in view of the fact that this was affected with a guilty plea there are questions about the quality of the state's evidence here first of all the questions about whether or how there ever drove a vehicle at all that night because even in the evidence we do have a new record she had only done a denies every driving the evidence we have of her driving it's from hearsay statements of her companion stephen there's evidence even in there some evidence that she was driving through steam and there's really now a lot of evidence in here the edge her eggs as far as i could tell it she drove off she was  and you have to do much in reconsider you have to do motion of making i could vacate the judgment we could reinstate charges certainly if the trial tourney and the trial judge didn't really understand the nature of the proceedings or the consequences opportunity to challenge what happened but this court can still consider that are appearing just plain error and affecting people be davis in that case the issue that the court granted the defendant relief was not only now raise in the trial court but it was never raised by any of the parties it was raised by the court on its own motion and the court did say in there what the consequences of this war which we are attributing to ineffective assistance of counsel because the trial judge and the trial judge doesn't necessarily have an obligation to tell the defendant all the consequences the judge to comply with truthful rules for  understand why it's that different to simply say we're still dealing into the evidence and leave it there yet but this court has recognized that there are a lot of circumstances where people do not properly and because of that we would basically asked to send it back and start from square one there certainly and this was a look into this record this was a very trial case there are a lot of issues in here as to whether she was driving or suspended license for not paying a fine and i mean we don't even know if she had a suspended license and all we have is her statement what the reason for it was but even assuming you can consider her statement although it's not corroborated by anything there's little then element is present in that aggravating element is not only that she not have a license but that she not have any of these other things so i don't think her saying i don't have a license or i'm suspended would be enough to prove the with the driver's license so i mean there's just there's so many factual questions that exist in this case that you have to wonder if this case were taking the trial if the attorney had filed the proper suit procedures based on what was stipulated to that the proof was not sufficient to establish the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt so him there not been this defective plea and the stipulation defining guilty as i said i think here today  arrest that in itself shows that she does suggest the state's case adversarial testing at this point it's unclear from the record or it's unclear to me from the record what she actually intended to accomplish it i think the arguments here today actually demonstrate this court's concerns and those that stipulated bench trials are tricky creatures i don't think still that a lot of trial attorneys or trial courts really understand the perceiving and what it means and what the difference is between did believing to the evidence and actually transmitting the proceedings into a guilty plea the one thing i would just like to point out that the m lawyers lack of knowledge of the trial judge's lack of knowledge to the absence of any indication that she understood the consequences we have the defendant unwittingly forfeited the right to challenge a conviction in a case where  questions about the nature of the state's evidence because she entered what was a guilty plea due to ineffective assistance again we worked hard and we're asking that her conviction be vacated and that it be sent back f