transaction john as this is not a case where there is a credibility contest between two witnesses in this case we have the testimony of mr martin and the truth and and true and accurate recording which a an exchange at the beginning the rest of the spartans testimony supports a finding that the transaction happened when she entered the home when she pressed enters the home there's a there is an exchange between highly mistrust and then when the conversation continues between  she testified that the police officer she was working with saw the text messages and saw her texting the same gap however the officers who testified in this case contradicted that testimony they did not see the messages and they did not see as and the messages that day was a witness who had a history had a criminal history of forgery convictions and had in the past received favorable sentences when she worked with a proactive unit in this case before she approached  mind is the statement about do you have something for cornelia and there's any answer yes but you know do i need a ride or whatever it is and then is it on  walked into the house and went to the bedroom to get the drugs from his demographic directly from the bedroom that should have been to not a knock to enter and knock on the bedroom door which by the shows that the tape contradict just have been because she wasn't there it doesn't appear to have been a choice that you  asked whether they're going to discuss human says the person who was bringing up this issues has left that and his representation of the post trial motions was that it was error not to call katrina ross that therefore his decision not to call it wasn't if we look at what she said what happened in the herald that she exchanged for the cocaine well miss ross mrs barton when she left the home was on the house was never searched to the heroin could still have been in the house your position seems to be that the tape speaks for itself there's only one interpretation or inference that could be drawn from the place where this court had occasion is called upon to draw the inference is what it means because that language contains more communicative information to mere words because spoken late which contains perl language listen to it hear pauses and this is timing of these letters early which might affect our interpretation is what's being said to whom significantly that i'm exchanging something tangible with you but viewed in light of the fact that miss martin does have those drugs in her hands when this time again walks into the room i think the inference is fact that she has the drugs and will make that delivery how does she reference that she says i have to drop the soft before she gets some of the right she says i have to drop off the crack and testifies in court that she's referencing the progs for she gives me some of he convicting the defendant instead of katrina she didn't even know who was going to deliver the drugs that they too were it happen to be defendant so that's what she testified to do it as for the audio recording any inconsistency that she had were pointed out in cross examination the jury of course was in the best position to evaluate the credibility of all the witnesses including miss barton and her explanations as to the minor variances in timeline don't undermine the ultimate fact that what defendant was the one who delivered the drugs otherwise the question of do you have something for cornelia makes absolutely no sense on top of that what was it claimed gas money was it supposedly of course that was prior to trial i mean  after trial so that that's neither here nor there on the sufficiency of evidence argument i would submit just listening to the audio if that's the only evidence that i heard and somebody asked me point blank who sold drugs to mr barton i would say defend it otherwise the whole context of the conversation doesn't make any sense as far as she's saying i can't remember the timeline i don't remember hearing hujan at all but maybe maybe it was it was jumbled a lot so i'm not saying it's not there but as to saying i have to drop these drugs off that could clearly mean i mean the whole subject of her being there was to obtain drugs that doesn't mean that she has them in her hand at that moment could mean that she's getting ready to get them  so clearly and especially when i look at the evidence in the light most favorable prosecution is required there was sufficient evidence primarily because miss martin just had no motive to lie here she had she had no reason to point out the defendant instead of katrina parties to review people versus human presumably for the well settled point that it's improper to call witnesses planning on invoking their fifth amendment privilege counsel later advised the court that he had he read through human he talked to katrina about human and that she was going to talk to the public defender later after the state rested since counsel stated the witness that was going to bring issues asked a human meaning person katrina is no longer showing up in other words they were all in the same page here there was no if if if she just didn't show up mysteriously presumably counsel would have called for a continuance it's not like it's not like he was blindsided he was the one inviting the court this witness isn't going to show up so as for prejudice which is the easiest way to dispose of this ineffective assistance argument the outcome of the proceedings wouldn't have been different no matter what if if he called katrina to testify trial court was well aware that that the minimum might come into play presumably the trial court would bar her testimony if she was planning on invoking the fifth amendment if she wasn't it was clear enough that she had been talking to the state of some point because immunity was brought up at some point presumably that means she will at some point was going to testify preferably to the state's position as a defense counsel if i'm in the if i'm in his shoes do i take a risk with bringing this witness up that could potentially sink the case altogether if she had an inclination like she had before to possibly testify consistent with the state's position that's an objectively reasonable position for a trial for a trial counsel to make and of course it's well settled that what witnesses to call it is a matter of trial strategy that can support an ineffective assistance argument here there was an objective way reasonable reason for him to call even if she testified or was planning on testifying or said she was going to testify consistent with her affidavit he had a perfectly reasonable valid substantial risk that she might when she's facing this incrimination herself change her mind then assuming even further that she testified exactly as to she said in the she was allowed to testify testified exactly as she said in her affidavit post trial the outcome of the proceeding still would have been different because her post trial affidavit makes absolutely no sense as justice connect mentioned the heroin there were specific testimony by police that both her car and her person was searched prior to this prior to this controlled by they fall over to the house in her car they observed her go into the house there's absolutely no possible way she had any contraband on her at that point she and why or why what logical sense would it make to risk smuggling some heroin in when the police give you money for a controlled by and then using the heroin instead of a control by it makes absolutely no sense in the context of this case and it's physically impossible for her to have had heroin in the police or thoroughly searched her car in her purse also the point of the do you have something for canoe cornelia meaning gas money makes absolutely no sense first of all gas money is never mentioned at all people don't people just don't talk bad basically about a subject that's not even mentioned anywhere on the on the recording but they mention a ride that defendant might get a ride from his apartment however that hadn't happened yet he hadn't asked for a ride yet when when katrina asked hey babe do you have something for  so clearly in the context of the conversation the gas money thing makes zero sense compared to mr barnes credible testimony corroborated by the audio recording i would submit even if you're trying to testified exactly as she as she anything in the record not in a statement of allocution frankl clearly doesn't apply and people versus gillispie i would argue is directly on point distinguishes williams as well they're like here there's argued newly discovered evidence here  at any rate that that is not enough to to show that the court had any duty to sue a spontaneous choir or or basically it would be fashioning an ineffective assistance of counsel argument from this post trial motion and the proper has no duty to do that added after that was that she would also testify as to why she was absent during the afternoon session trial court then stated ok or is there any more additional argument counsel stated no there's not even an argument before the trial court at that point this is a clear clear case of a waiver an affirmative acquiescence it's hard for the trial court to argue any position that's not before it and even if it was in her absence as to being absent at the afternoon session is  completely irrelevant to the trial court granting or denying defendants post trial motion to finish post trial motion concerned only what katrina alleged in her affidavit whether she was overslept or whatever has no bearing either she was called or she wasn't it has no bearing on her testimony as to her affidavit as to defendant sentencing which is the last argument record reflects that there were no it was within statutory limits no abuse of court did offer some personal comments about the widespread opioid epidemic in the state in the country however right before that they say i'm not considering this but i feel compelled to mention it clearly the record predicts that they considered any statutory or improper statutory aggravating factors as to societal harm that was a rejection of trial court record defense council sentencing recommendation that the statutory mitigating factors of the defense conduct didn't threaten or cause any serious harm that was a rejection of that statutory mitigating factor people versus mccain with a side of my briefs holds consistent bed truck work correctly determine the harm in here only caused by drug related cop crimes rendered this exact mitigating factor in a political delivery itself is also completely different from what happens on the tape she testifies that she walks in and goes to the bedroom but that's contradicted on the tape and when she's when that's pointed out on cross examination she tries to change her story in several different ways so therefore i would not when he said he doesn't have any other arguments it's on the motion not on the specific issue of the offer of proof as to sentencing i know that the court makes very many references to