precision hope language is critical if so i want to make sure what we're talking about was he required communication for the plea negotiations at that point ye know this whole idea you know we're his lawyers we're moving with negotiations over time where things go back and work and you make strategic decisions and then after it's over you say to yourself oh i counsel's rights are not him to do what he flew the flag of seven years to the prosecutor prosecutor he came by really because he'd already gone down to eight and said that's it you're discussions is there no course not but which is probably ok so you're basically suggesting that the letter from defense counsel to the defendant explaining what it appen he said he went back and asked percent the prosecutor became right i think if you look at it if you look at the letter closely it doesn't say the defense counsel asked for so it says he's mad about a letter that my client wrote to the state's attorney after after defense counsel said he's not me go back and ask for seven my client working letter saying you offered or the state offered eight years i have and you know i asked you to go back for seven we had a fight and then you didn't do any things and if we could have six or seven we would just be done with this now is byron after all that ineffective conduct i was talking about anyway and th counsel the more the defense attorney went to the prosecutor to ask for in a lower sentence than it was having it was it was counterproductive he kept going up or if he did as indicated in counsel's letter to the defendant telling him to stop sending letters to the prosecutor he said that he's irritated because at one point cindy take eight and then apparently he and he says i can't go back to seven x which provided for him hants penalty a minimum of nine years and he said yeah i made my best offer and it was refuse and that's when the defendant said i want the eight that's that's not on the table anymore and there's this conference between counsel and they come back on and address the court and teleport that the prosecutor offered something less than i think it was twelve years there when there was just never defense counsel can only follow his source so many times he was just making it more difficult the defendant was making it more difficult for his attorney to prosecutor had told him and then i wouldn't have approached it so even though his client might want six or seven but that's that's too bad he had for him how many grams  of coke he told defense counsel i've got no defense here it provides for a nine year minimum and the prosecutor is supposed to go with the simple possession to i don't know what else he could have done the record spoke for itself and as you said you know contract principles indicating that he never accepted the offer and or was it was  i think maybe correct judgment that this is this case has already been decided once already this issue and additional material just just doesn't change the result on misstated the valid claim here and actually argued actively against all of my client's claims he began his argument by saying i do you can see that this post conviction petition quote stands on pretty shaky footing at this point and then proceed to go through every single one of my client's  issues in the process mis understanding of the claim regarding eight years and in telling the court i'm coming i'm trying to court what the weaknesses of each issue work he concluded argument by saying quote i do believe that mr robinson's petition for post conviction relief is rather shaky and sixteenth it indicates that there was a nine year offer outstanding at that point and by the way i think i can get it back down to eight the letter was dated july sixteenth we don't and we know that a week later on july twenty third there are no outstanding plea offers so if there's a serious question here is whether co