several proceedings and the result in this case specifically counsel repeatedly failed to use significant impeachment material i asked them a nation material to undermine the credibility of the state's witnesses and that failure resulted in the jury not being aware of a critical issue of fact pertaining to the most serious charge in this case and that was aggravated possession of eleven to twenty stolen firearms specifically counts as failures to not undermine the number of states provided a clue on the number of guns that were taken during the residential burglary and possessed or knowingly is the record on appeal shows that there is evidence that i jail did not have an accurate inventory of the number of firearms that were in his home on the date of the residential burglary and the only person to confirm that all of the gun what they actually took except that they came out with regard to since she sought to go on guns now she had a prior inconsistent statement denying any involvement saying she had even seen mr courtney in the few days before she was picked up by police and more was found that the found all at the trailer where they found the i would not read it there was a reasonable strategy for not bringing it out because to do so you have to ignore essentially the  that it's not the contents of patient in the event it's not the nature of the event it's not an issue of character what it is is saying hey the state has this huge charged against you and you have the motivation to eighty he didn't know that so he didn't know what firearms were in his home and while that may not sound like a huge issue for sixteen firearms it is because his firearms were most this story out of sight certainly some of them you know there's one  key issue is the most serious charge for which he was sentenced to twenty five years in the department of corrections that's the eleven to twenty firearms and you only get to eleven to twenty firearms by coming on gerald and if in your benjamin the and while it's true that there were two guns which the grandson in this case admitted that he had stronger than earlier date the risk was amended before trial so you're saying that there were always going to be evidence of of me the love and yes your hon and so the list was amended so there was never any impact information that was presented to the jury so there was a credibility issue basically that the yes your honor which would going to the jury to decide which trial counsel chose to bring up during the closing arguments when she discussed the credibility of witnesses which in this case when you do have to tread so carefully because there were a lot of characters involved in these crimes you don't want that information to sad case and his grandson didn't really got involved with drugs and sell his actions on their on their side and then you bring in the defended in this case who had significant prior charges and so behalf she has to let him testify if he wants to the shells i had to ask him questions that weren't going to open the door for the state to been introduced more evidence against him in the case in terms of the say i'm trying the best i can but if you're not going to listen to me there's only so much i can do and so the people would argue that in this case trial counsel is more am going to do the best that i can which is all you can really answer any attorney to deal at trial and so she she gives a notice saying my client wants to go now i would be more comfortable if we went to trial in errors undermine confidence in the outcome any outcome included conviction on a charge for aggravated possession of eleven to twenty stolen firearms which there should have been a recent issue  treasures was ten years so it's a difference in a fifteen year sentence is a different outcome and you know the second issue i think to go back to the prejudice argument that you  location i mean on an earlier date and had continued access to the residence he had left out the window open on the nineteenth when he left with at least two of those firearms and could have gone back in the interim had strategic again counsel says she's not ready she absolutely high's the duty to be ready for trial and to explain to the grid this really is a continuance if she is not that is an issue for