that's correct your honor there's no evidence of that there is no rational or strategic reason for counsel to fail to seek suppression of miller's alleged confession and the state offers none when suppression represents the best and wisest course of action c this wasn't the single most damaging piece of evidence in the case as it was the only evidence that was inconsistent with miller's theory that he was in fact a bona fide purchaser of the car and that the car was not stolen because counsel failed to move to suppress  that this court may review the air under the doctrine of plain error because the evidence in this case was closely balanced this was essentially a credibility contest between the witnesses for both sides the testimony of officer to young regarding what he believed to be the conditions of the car that indicated it was still that this was worth it it may be reviewed in to the doctor of minor and the evidence was close we had competing with the physical evidence in this case actually sort of unusually supported both versions of events right in miller presented testimony from two witnesses who testified abrams i knew the car wasn't running i seen it parked on the street i asked him if they could buy it he said sure i bought it i towed it with the title without keys i had it towed to a repair shop where it was subsequently repaired and then mr miller apparently it the fact that the facts of the condition of the car the fact of possession of the car in this case therefore it supports both versions of events it's undisputed that miller was in possession of a car at the time of his arrest this is perhaps different than your typical mo was you know a little troubling to make sure that you're out of the office or games testimony was he did not know the car was stolen at the time that he began the pursuit of mr miller he observed miller violate the median at a traffic intersection of the police were monitoring because it was a a location a frequent traffic violations and that's why he began the pursuit it was only after miller had gotten into the accident and been placed in custody that the young learned that the car had been stopped reported stolen out of chicago forty five minutes earlier submit that supports miller's version of events that that mr abrams in fact sold the car several days before and it had been towed and repaired by the time miller was driving it up abrams and in fact sabrina wright the states with the subpoena right both testified that the car was in a non operational condition and therefore would have had to be repaired if i ever testified that had two flat tires so if they could not i would submit have been driving at seventy miles an hour from officer to young forty five minutes after it was stolen if indeed it had been stolen that morning and of strickland prejudice and also a deficiency of counsel's performance and he can't meet either of the hands of strictly it cannot be said that this statement that the found it made  acknowledging that the tire was stolen was so critical in light of all the other evidence that his conviction hangs on that statement the evidence is not closely balanced you have an offender driving a car that is with no peace killed steering column punched out why he tries to elude the police he leads them like a madman on a high speed chase putting other motorists and the public at risk he's caught when his car collides with another vehicle he's still trying to escape and then he gives the police officers a false name and birthday all of this evidence he said he tried to s right well he is leaving the passenger side of the car after he collides with it if you looked at it claims yes a broken leg well he's looking over his shoulder and he tries to move before he falls down and can't move anymore because of his injuries chase correct also counsel was not deficient in failing to move to suppress the statement counsel reviewing this videotape prior to trial would see that you have an officer saying what did you do right oh you ronnie and you do not hear an audible response from the defendant you don't hear defendant crying out that his leg hurts but you don't hear an audible response with did he say he had a broken leg as he was saying well he was in my my leg my leg that i mean that's my understanding i heard so counsel would know that this officer he would have another tool in his arsenal to impeach the credibility of detective the young so when detective young was going to say that that defendant said this counsel was going to and did admit that videotape with the to write a decision that says if you don't hear the read you know if it's not what i want you to write but i think it's quite easy to write a decision that says counsel made it as a matter of strategy said i'm not going to contest this because this is not shown by the physical evidence of the recording and therefore he had another basis on which he could attack the credibility of the officer who saw and arrested the fact that you don't think a good lawyer should so it's a bit sad position that the record shows this was a matter of trial strategy and defendant was not prejudiced by this remark that this evidence at all and it must be noted also the trial court never said this is the most critical evidence in the hates i know that he admitted you know his guilt of this and that's why that's that this was a bench trial the judge said i'm basing my decision on all the evidence that i heard not just on the defendant's admission so you think th effect whatsoever i don't think it had the effect that it found it would say that define it was prejudiced by it you know i think what it was prejudice but it mission you know i don't admission and you've got witnesses on both sides why isn't the evidence close in this case where do i start the evidence is not close you have the  in her name it's register she owns title in her name it's registered in her name it's her car she has the keys and her husband sells it even if that statement is true that he did sell it to merican near a gave it to defendant that car stolen he has no right to sell that car and miraca and defendant are supposedly in the car business there they can they told cars there and jump here folks so you send the husband  stole i'm not saying the husband still what i'm saying if you look at the if the evidence even if you consider that defendants evidence credible which the trial court did not that that step closer was the theft of the car because the husband had at some point later the question was did you learn it some point later that the car was actually sold that well what would that what does that show that would show that she knew their husband's so occurred because she reported it stolen immediately it could have been the next day that she got out or as so many weeks later and her husband says i knew she was reporting it stolen i didn't say anything at the time he didn't want to tell me that he had the money the big forty bucks and again it doesn't show that it the car wasn't stolen if i cannot briefly address this defendant's claim about victim learned that her car was supposedly sold there forfeited so it's defense burden to show one that these were clear and obvious errors and that the evidence is so closely balanced that this error tipped the the balance in favor of the testified that the car was that the steering column was peeled because she said the car was trashed and torn up and that could reasonably be inferred to be a reference to the steering column the car was smashed in the front when she saw it next and i also would say that the trial court did not state that it found the detective credible based on miss wright's testimony regarding the steering column being peeled and torn up i'm video you see young looking at that steering column four times four separate occasions he is in the front of that car looking around and at one point he is talking into his radio after his looking at the front of the car and he did testify also that when he saw the steering column he reported it to be calm that video can you honestly tell me that you could tell what he was looking at yes i from my viewing of it he's spending a significant amount of looking around the front of the vehicle he's at one point he's looking from the driver side on the outside looking right in at the front driver's area and the other time not only detective young but five other officers are climbing in the passenger side and looking in the driver's area and i hate looking all over this at some points they were looking all over but i don't see how you could be looking in examining the front of that vehicle without noticing that the steering columns feel and that corroborates detect making no it's not an assumption it's plainly visible on the tape that he is looking in the vehicle looking from the passenger side right at the front driver's area again clear in obvious errors they're not present here closely balanced evidence no it's not closely balanced you do have as i said gentlemen who are supposedly in the toe in the towing business car business except a car without title they accept a car even if it's heard even if it's supposedly a junkie a call and i would submit that the video shows this is not such a clunker after all this is a car that appears normal you see far worse cars on the street than this car appeared and you have a defendant driving a car when we know he has no piece to start that car is alluding the police are driving on a high speed chase which is more than just  unwise for a motorist motorists who are going to be pulled over for a traffic violation don't lead police on high speed chase unless they're fleeing because they're conscious that they're guilty i'm not their offense and that's what the evidence shows here is not closely balanced even if you want to credit defendant the defense theory that that the car was sold by the victim's husband he had no legal authority to sell the car for any amount of money and it doesn't change the first time that the failure to move to suppress the confession was a strategic decision because counsel wish to impeach officer to young with the fact that the video does not corroborate to young's testimony about the statement we would submit that if you have a made without benefit miranda warnings the best and wisest course of action is to move to suppress that statement entirely rather than to try to impeach the officers testimony about that statement the state cites no case to suggest that it is a reasonable strategic decision to decide