codefendant have brandished the gun and as i read this it was with regard to gun brandishing that the aiding and abetting conversation focused and his counsel says hey they want twenty six yes judge i think you'd be willing to plea to aiding and abetting branching of a firearm and the court says ok mr land is that correct that the defendant says yes ma'am and then the court says so mr clark with regard to count six charging you with possessing it brandishing or aiding and abetting that brandishing how do you plead and he says guilty and so i'm not getting i don't see merging in with the substantive crime it seems to me that the clear import of the discussion is he's concerned that he didn't have a gun himself was unclear who shot and he didn't want to be admitting to having had the gun himself but he understood that aiding and abetting was having advance knowledge of the presence of a gun and that it might be used or brandished in the course of the robbery but he distinctly pled guilty without any discussion of aiding the betting to the hub check robbery and to the court but i don't think that they apply to the defendant himself because when the defendant himself had an opportunity and i could direct you to a one hundred and twenty eight my nineteen through twenty store i was there to rob the store i had the bag to rob the store and that was in staten island i was assisting someone take stuff so that's more like aiding and abetting but i suppose he was there and taking things in commerce you and as i read the whole d record it looks to me as if your client was desperately anxious to plead guilty and desperately anxious to plead guilty because he had a relatively good deal and was not being charged with any number of other crimes where he actually clearly had a gun and all the other things so i'm not quite sure i understand what's going on here he may make may or may not for the reason the presiding judge suggested have an argument but even if he had an guilty and i think there is plenty and the records that make it pretty murky allocution and and kind of a muddled thing he sent letters to the court after he pleaded guilty indicating that  the branching of the firearm during the robbery and then shortly thereafter the defendant again stated that he knew that a gun would be brandished when he went into the store to commit the robbery and then before sentencing the defendant reaffirms that able to do understand those excuses to coffee to you understand those statements in context to reflect advance knowledge such as rose with requires that right yes you're on the defendant didn't multiple times that prior to the library defendant and his coconspirator brandishing firearms is relevant to the advance knowledge and that frankly if there were no advance rocked if there were no prior lotteries there's still an allocution which the defendant states he knew before the robbery so we're not even in a circumstance in which the defendant has stated he learned suring the robbery and then the question becomes whether or not he continued to further operate and which would qualify to qualify as advance knowledge ask you know it is it is striking at a one hundred and twenty eight of the record that the defendant at that point says i didn't get it that robbery whereas the crime charged was the robbery itself as opposed to aiding and abetting and i don't know whether you feel you had an opportunity to interject anything at that point because he was engaged in a colloquy with the with the court but can you give any betting the robbery this statement there's no reference or discussion at all d of the conference as prior to during after the plea about anything and abetting the robbery there was extensive discussion about aiding and abetting the nine and the question was how do you see the object robbery guilty i think given all of that and then again the robbery which the video which shows that the defendant is coconspirator actually committing the robbery i think all of that supports the conclusion that the defendant