fairly heavily stacked against him and i didn't and his attorney was in a very difficult situation of having to deal with not only the potential sentences that the weight of the evidence and frankly the weight of the evidence was very strong and your standard is whether the defendant would have pled guilty or gone to trial had been properly advised and what i'm saying here is the question yes that's that's the issue could have gone to trial there's a whole variety of different crimes that fit the general def general cloak will term statutory rape which means sexual intercourse under circumstances where the child were consent is not a defense that's usual definition of  in that same letter the the attorney earlier in the letter and said i have tried and i tried to talk with the fans counselor at the prosecutor of record one o nine i have talked to the district attorney repeatedly to try to get the offer changed to pleading guilty to sex abuse to which is count four with a lesser presumptive probationary sentence but he adamantly refused and so the defense counsel was saying here are the chances here are the options that are available to you i've been trying to get the d a to take a plea to the count four but he won't do it now as to count four we have a possibility of depending on that line on the ground that there was no completed sexual intercourse but there is no defense faced on consent to that charge because that is the statutory rape charge and so when the defense counsel was getting in this device the advice is absolutely one hundred percent correct and her word in law what petitioner is is his claim here is that well the problem is i misunderstood what he was telling me he's saying when i look at this and i say the conduct her conduct you want to do engage in that the reason no defense because i thought i was talking about all the charges that's what he's saying here is that well i know this interpreted the correct advice my lawyer gave me and i thought that that meant i her graph that we're talking about is about two three paragraphs later looking keep in mind about this case is when it went through the post conviction he's patrician proposed conviction did that he was neither adequate systems counsel under either the organ federal constitution there is not even a remote probability that any of the alleged any of the alleged claims of unprofessional errors even if they were true which they are not would have produced any different application of strickland non prejudiced don't we have to conclude that the state court either expressly or implicitly made a finding that he would have pleaded guilty if you'd been fully advise because you read his letter to be talking only about counsel having an opportunity to testify under oath about the hundred maybe dozens of hours of conversation he had had with petitioner going through all of this and so it's a little bit of being ambushed at trial on this and so the record is a little bit skinny on that in it a determination that given the overwhelming if you look at the other findings that the court made the evidence against this guy was absolutely overwhelming he didn't have any plausible defense he was absolutely correctly decided by his counsel and so i think in that