the next and final case i recall the docket day september fourteenth two thousand and eleven is case number one eleven six six six agenda number nine people versus three also for the  any trial motion must be filed within thirty days of the verdict of acquittal motion is a new trial motion it seeks new trial and depends crinkle motion in this case express the saudi trial on its face and in the argument therefore the trial court probably denied should be reversed initially there's no dispute here that under section one sixteen dash one of the code of criminal procedure any new trial motion must be filed within thirty days of the verdict and if it is not the trial court can dismiss the motion been permitted when the state has not objected therefore that the crank a procedure is entirely consistent with section one sixteen dash one as section one this sixteen dash one says that  must be written but again just like with the crinkle procedure that writing requirement can be waived by the state so our position is that section one six hundred s one governs and that therefore the motion must be written by just like with the less i believe i believe it would be i know what your position is where the opposite is this would it be worth you know what your answer is going to be would it be more efficient to take the senate's approach here that have as why the post trial motion procedure exists by the legislature said for these types a new trial motions you have thirty days and after that we're going to move on to the next stage of proceedings now it is not our position this defendant or any other defendant within allegation of ineffectiveness can't bring those claims every if he doesn't if he fails to bring them within thirty days of the verdict this defendant can bring up post conviction petition raising the same allegations or if they're pan from the record you can bring them on appe conforms that there has to be some indication in the notice of appeal about what is going up to  appeal what issues and here because date other than the dates on which the motion that he she was decided arse expressly missing in those of appeal it was not clear that that these motions were we're going to be a yes it is our position that it is a new trial motion in the way we know that is because because we've been instructed by this court to determine the character of a motion we don't just look at the title although in this case the title of the motion is what you're  may please the court counsel my name is jamie montgomery i represent the defendant apollyon mr tyrone patrick and at del said i'd like to say that i agree with justice thomas that the important thing here is for this court to make a rule because there does seem to be some confusion in our public courts about whether or not one sixteen one applies as it did arise and serial and gilmore now of course our position here is that one sixteen one does not apply in a line of cases beginning with crane call a right line action should be taken now this bright line rule is a simple inclusive rule with the minimal requirement of a trial courts and that is to create to do this preliminary inquiry the importance of this role though is great because if we can if court so within thirty days after say the motion to reconsider sentence is denied which would be when a notice of appeal be due if on day thirty one the defendant writes to the court and says my attorney was ineffective too long a defendant has to raise these claims such a rule that goes along with the trial court's jurisdiction simply makes sense anything less than that defeats the purpose of the rule because under one sixteen one if we reachable so at that point it's ok to write a defendant continue to be represented by ineffectiveness is ineffective counsel because he missed a thirty day deadline doesn't make sense and it doesn't comport with this court's intent  assistance of counsel and many other proceedings besides simply trial there's things like sentencing post trial imposed sentencing motions guilty plea proceedings anaerobic and revocation  proceedings if a defendant receives ineffective assistance of counsel any of those proceedings the result is not a new trial it's perhaps a new sentencing hearing or perhaps a new motion to reconsider sentence second a criminal defendant really believes his attorney was ineffective only at one stage trial and thus their claims are likely to result in a variety of remedies not simply a new trial indeed here mr patrick complained his attorney had failed to protect his right to a speedy trial which if true would have would result in a dismissed dismissal that his attorney was ineffective in challenging his sentences and she had failed to properly preserve issues on appeal there was a defendant is not required to file a written motion  in order to trigger the procedure he need only bring his claims to the attention of the trial court now there have been cases where believe it was cited on page eight of my brief i forget the name of a case where the defendant stated made statements at his sentencing hearing about his attorney and that was sufficient to trigger the crinkled proceedings that would be people v barnes said on page eight of may brief and again people view persons and people view bell so that was the present bell but as  the sign of cases has developed it's become clear the defendant need only raise his claims onto the trial court's attention and b if that's the case of the thirty day requirement that a written motion be filed makes no sense because under that theory either all of those cases were decided incorrectly or as here if a defendant files a written motion and it's not timely he's out of luck but had he orally complained and the motion reconsider which of course mr patrick couldn't do because like many defendants he was shipped off to the department of corrections before the motion to reconsider sentence was was heard had he been able to orally complain about the stage he would have been fine but since he wrote his complaints down in a motion he's out of luck now for the immediate relief available in when the defendant raises a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel is not a new trial first the immediate relief is the preliminary inquiry and then it's possible depending on how that inquiry goes  defense will be appointed new counsel and then an evidentiary hearing and then possibly the outcome with the eventual hearing will be a new trial but the immediate relief is not a new trial and in fact despite the country what the state argues mr patrick  well he stated this a few times in his motions that his attorneys failures should be sufficient to give him a new trial what he repeatedly stated in his prayers for relief and throughout his motions was that he wanted a new attorney appointed to represent him at the evidence rehearing he was without possibly knowing it invoking crinkle he kept asking i want to new attorney and i want an evidentiary hearing on my claims he did say a few times like i said that his attorneys actions should result in it could result in a new trial but ultimately what he asked for was to be given proceedings no stay contends that this court need not consider public policy considerations or whether something leads to absurd results because section one sixteen one is not ambiguous and legislatures intent is very clear from the statutory language and as i said to be all said we have never argued that one sixteen one is a big yes we argue that one sixteen one has absolutely nothing to do with this case it doesn't apply  of ineffective assistance of counsel and this makes sense because the rule as it exists is simple clear and inclusive it covers everyone who you know as long as the trial court still jurisdiction and that makes sense too because with unlike motions for  trial and motions to reconsider sentence we don't manage defendants how to go about complaining about their attorneys effectiveness they're left to figure it out on their own and i think the inclusive simple nature of the rule as it stands recognizes that fact that we're dealing with pro se despondence who you know have little to no knowledge of the law and it's a recognition that all you have to do is tell the judge and we'll take over from there and we'll see if it needs something needs to be done it's a very minimal requirement and it's a very clear and simple bright line rule for all those reasons this court should reject the state's attempts to blur the boy and rule and affirm the order of the appellate court  a couple very quick points in rebuttal and initially ten argues that the relief for critical motion is not a new trial but actually counsel this begs the question what would counsel do if council ineffective assistance claim crank call it self says it that the relief for exists successful crank emotions in the trial so councils appointed after a counsel's appointment more than thirty days after the verdict to litigate a new trial motion that has not yet been filed would be again to determine the character of a motion we look at the remedy so if the remedy then here is a new trial and even if it were not the remedy for the motion that alternately have to be filed to litigate these ineffectiveness claims would be a new trial and therefore that mo that's consistent with with the way several motions work finally that this court has never created a separate rule for pro se defendants pro se defendants have to follow the rules that all other late again that against have to follow