counsel is a serious one dollar and one dollar which supreme court rule for all one ensures the defendants understand certain key facts prior to even counsel so that there is no doubt that they understood the importance of their there any evidence in the record that the trial court provided a specific admonition done in open court regarding defendant's right to happen counsel prior to loud opinion to proceed pro s based on these concessions it's clear that the trial were did not comply with wolf world mind yet the statements the rest of its brief and repeatedly asking this court to find that mr harris should have  it's just english well because in the in the instant case the difference that trial court mentioned that you were facing a term of forty five years on just one figure here you're  liable for being sentenced to local cases i'm trying to find that was in forty eight when the judge page forty eight when the judge i said some of these charges you're looking at forty five if we can convict on just one meaning there's two more charges you're subject specifically say as in bayers where the trial court was supposed to say this is consecutive sentencing and you can be sentenced on the separately the trial for say this is the max thirty years is the max whereas in this case the truck worse that you're facing forty five on one but you've got more charges you're facing down he also told them their truck were told if any you could spend the rest of your life in prison if you mess up your defense that was on page fifty of the record the trial court recognizing defendant did not have a high degree of education as he d quit school in th grade which is trying to explain wh a level that the defendant could understand and this is actually the reason this the state cited to that on july nd which was about six weeks after the actual waiver of counsel and this happens on the record on page sixty one defendant was then asked do you know consecutive sensing is in the defendant was able to say yes he does which shows the defendant understood the way the trial court explained it you're looking at thirty five years on one but you've got multiple counts and he did inform the judge didn't from the defendant and the various minimum and maximum sentences for all the charges so that's how we believe it's just english will from high degree of intelligence a high school education he was trying to explain what everything meant in we believe in them and then he substantially complied because he did waiver it was intelligent that if it was you one way or point with the nature of the possession of a stolen vehicle charge being referenced at the may hearing the court i believe referenced the nature of that charge at that hearing but he did not state the consecutive sentences and the court's failure to tell him about his right to counsel st of all for a court to give a blanket statement to a defendant that he could die in prison for that blanket statement to satisfy the similarly a forty five year sentence imposed on the twenty four year old mr hearings could also be considered a life sentence the fact that the court told him that he could die in prison does not mean the court clearly conveyed what wolf world so the state's arguments there are clearly contradicted by the way the rule for align itself and my purpose behind that bill next the words right to counsel are not magic words that is a little disturbing also being told that you are going to be held to the same standard as an attorney is not the same thing as being told you have a right to counsel this is a very  not tell him about his right to counsel before he waived that right