say i think the person conflict because you're putting the attorney in a situation where she's either got to say yes i was ineffective or no i wasn't ineffective in my client is simply wrong and so every situation where either she's advancing her clients as she's supposed to do or say for you or she's defending her own performance i think what we have here is a situation where she really ended up defending her own performance on this case when she came into court on on the motion to withdraw she said  face and she she says yours is fine which she doesn't do anything to actually vance he just says this is it she's not taking a position one way or another she's not certainly not saying yes i was ineffective for not looking into this and the third things you mentioned even in that second the other thing the court didn't bother to make any sort of inquiry with to defend it was a one sided inquiry if the court asked counsel about her position on for  i think in this case it's clear it's clearly abuse of discretion because this was a case calling for the more frankly hearing judge had found as he did and that's truly the issue here what i would like to emphasize also your honour's is the defense counsel seemed to be alluding to this news article but in his brief he did not allege anywhere that the result of a more critical hearing was wrong that that was not an issue that he raised only point was this for sake of interest or your honors i'll try to keep my point pretty brief because i truly think this is covered adequately brief but it could be overlooked here that even the more criminal inquiry regarding ineffective assistance of counsel that the judge made probably wasn't required the defendants know that it's set out in page five of the defendant's brief in tokyo had no real allegations of ineffectiveness he said counsel said she would meet with him prior to the april eleventh two thousand of a court date on a given occasion he made nothing of that though he said he had no problem with his attorney with regarding council not meeting with him this one day and i'm going into these matters to show what a truly fair look at all his questions the defendant had been all regarding the judge not meeting with in t i'm sorry she says she met with him many times this day also the offer is she said she didn't know what specific to each time but this day the offer to plead guilty was and your do limit nine thirty in the morning ninety nine three he didn't plead guilty until the afternoon obviously had time to meet with his counsel that day and was not unduly rushed or was not he was under the pressure that are criminal defendants under it should have time to meet with him the risk of the only perhaps judges should talk about it usual conference or maybe a supreme court rule would come saying if any guy has remorse about his plea within the first twenty four hours forty or whatever concurrence in surely where he's pointed out in my quote strict compliance is not so strict and my argument to you is your honour's there is zero indication here that council did anything other than  isn't there a point to having the six zero four d filed at the time of the hearing i mean isn't that doing something for the trial court that they need it's giving the trial court that information meaningless thing so it can't be harmless as you argue in the supreme although i injected the supreme court doesn't seem to be very favorable favorable my argument your honor and i don't think this panel is to buy either but it's the argument i have available to me to make under these circumstances under the don't i'm you know idea i love the opportunity of authors i've you know i i point out in my brief at pages four six how the more cranky hearing privately found there was no conflict by this attorney is no ineffective assistance i'm returning now to scam in both cases defendants frequently file pro se motions of ineffectiveness leading to the crime or hears rule six zero four d d regarding post guilty plea motions does not affect this matter indeed alan says that toward the end of the opinion not exactly on these facts but alan points that out six or forty speech so the judge determining whether defendant is represented by counsel or not and wants counsel the defendant has a right to an attorney both then in for trial however that doesn't mean the defendant has a right to a different attorney than the one he had when his hearing makes up hateley merit was a claim of ineffectiveness in the judge after the hearing so funny three more points i'd like to make largely addressing the defenders reply the later discovered point of the defense here regarding the amount of damages possibly being under three hundred was brought to light ideas attorney argued in a motion to withdraw the plea and prevailed state's attorney came june twenty nine in july sixth two thousand and eleven more tranquil years that's in the record and it's in and here basically shutting down the argument of this rule six or forty really protecting pro se people here it was the defense attorney who filed his motion to withdraw his guilty plea he wasn't doing that pro se so i'm just raising those points because they you certainly favor be in show that the defendant was afforded every consideration every right every representation by counsel  necessarily articulated in his proceeding letter self but if he had an attorney appointed that attorney have a duty to help flush out these allegations to put them in the proper form of alleging ineffective  said here's what this claim is about this three hundred dollars in damages issue so we do have a conflict and we can't rely on what happened was simply because he didn't have an attorney who was actively advocating for the second issue like the dresses council doesn't really explain were addressed why was it so for d c to asians are different than every other frankel situation again we have alan on the one hand saying that it's the same and that's fine but again other than michael have the right to make pro se allegations of effective assistance