nineteenth and march twelfth hearings and the women nineteenth hearing he expects confusion regarding the plea deal he told the floor with his attorneys that their team and that when we came back and it was eighteen the court told mr hopkins he did not we did not know what offers were made before trial and that the sentence was not up to counsel mr hopkins responded with he come to me with thirteen the trial court stated on the record that it did not know w hopkins meant then asked counsel if he had told mr hopkins that he was the state controlled sentencing and counsel responded i just told him what the state's offer was i told him what i think you might do with a sentencing hearing is what i think mr thing of six to thirty years however before trial the court told him that the sentencing range was either for once a preteen years or six to thirty years depending on his criminal history however he never inquiry whatsoever into this complaint instead the court just deny the motion for new counsel and when mr hopkins later asked why he wasn't getting a new attorney the court responded that he had not demonstrated any prejudice and that he would have an opportunity to contest the an inquiry into mr hopkins complained about not having a defense at trial was important here because we don't know what he meant when he wants certain witnesses called he wants certain cross examination conducted we cannot know based on the record that we have  additionally this claim can be resolved by the trial court considering counsel's performance at trial because counsel only called one witness and he say in the record that he did so because he forgot to ask the question on direct examination and all he asked the witness about was why he walked with a cane because of this mr hopkins requests through the poor man so that we can get a family record to understand these claims and this is the purpose of  the march twelfth hearing mr hopkins made several complaints he argued that the counsel did not communicate with him there's no communication period man he complained that his counsel was unprofessional and cussed at him and again he complained about what comments about mr hopkins complaints about their relationship and counsel's only response was to explain that he explained to mr hopkins there was an issue with the notice of appeal being premature he never are he never addressed mr hopkins into mr hawkins complaints and i think the record is good evidence that this needs to happen because we don't know what mr hopkins meant no inquiry was made into his complaints about a lack of defense at the trial and about counse at this point at this post trial here and so after the trial had occurred and defense counsel said that he had not that in fact what defendant was referring to was the right to fence counsel had told him he thought might happen at sentencing so the trial itself the facts of the case where the defendant had been caught he was identified by the bit of breaking into the victim's home he was also caught clean the victim's home by a police officer as he was leaving the  turned out he just had gout so for the defense counsel to bring him back up to the stand and show the jury that any sort of injury they might have assumed he had from this crime that it wasn't the case he had it was unrelated there wasn't a whole lot of other mitigating things that defense counsel could have done for his client so we believe that this was an adequate defense and that the tr constantly just generally this unprofessional exam and it was basically just a repetition of these things so especially in the second post trial hearing as defendant is saying that he this case is distinct from many critical arguments that i made before this court because some inquiry into some of mr hopkins claims did occur and most of the time we we see an acquittal complaint where the trial court responded no way for a whole trial hearing this new counsel he's just requesting that the case be remanded so that the record can be fleshed out so that we can under stand his claims on and good and is that we don't understand his claims is that the state and mr hopkins disagreed in the briefing as to what he meant by his claims we just simply don't know because we're not a question it's we're not asking the court stopped just short of fleshing out his  regarding the plea deal we just don't know what he meant and again with the defense at trial we don't know what he wanted to have happened what did not happen at trial because no follow up questions were asked on that point  and just like the morgan and the growing cases cited in the reply brief we can't say that harmless error occurred here if there is not enough for the record to make that determination because of this mr hopkins would