whether the trial court properly mohnish mr back prior to his counsel today i would like to address counsel's ineffective assistance but i am prepared to take questions regarding the counsel runners at trials or to question regarding  counsel waiver argument there is a trial the state's central evidence against mr packer was his confession to detective hockaday during closing arguments the prosecution principally and repeatedly relied on mr peck's confession and arguing to the jury that he possessed drugs with the intent to do what the prosecution said that unlike a lot of cases that we have to infer from circumstantial evidence we don't have to mr peck himself told us exactly what he was planning to do he made it easy for us later the prosecutor said most important is the defendant statement because remember what he told you in the interview he's not making those statements to give you any kind of indication that he just possessed it without intent cells and later the prosecutor said that you don't have to rely on the opinion of an expert in this case because mr peck told you exactly what he was planning to do with the drugs mr peck's confession was also the reason why the t attorney he explained that he was worried that his statements would later be used against him instead of getting mr peck an attorney leaves detective said ok like i explained you out there your girlfriend no no wait what is my charge and is as you can see from the record interrogation that is simply not what happened at all her recollection is inaccurate and because of that her decision not to file a motion to suppress was not strategy it was deficient representation in mr paxton fashion having it allowed in really hijack the trial it overpowered distracted from all the other evidence i stated before the comments the prosecutor made during closing argument he basically told the jury that the only evidence that matter was mr pax confession and because of this the other evidence that could have helped to that mr pipes simply possessed the drugs out his confession was really to fall on the jury's deaf ears there was the state witness who conceded that a scale which was found  be beneficial to a buyer and this there was only two dosage units of cocaine found in the state's witness also admitted that an individual can take several ecstasy pills per day  was also the reason that he was not provided with lesser included destruct instructions the truck which specifically said because of this confession confession there is no evidentiary basis or lesser included instructions for simple possession now with  new trial it's more than recently reasonably probable that mr pett could be convicted of a lesser and that's the only direct evidence against him  was surely circumstantial establish a reasonable probability that the motion to suppress would have been granted and secondly establishing a reasonable probability that had the evidence been suppressed which prevented trial out there are defendant was found guilty of two counts of the liver in terms of possession the evidence indicated that the defendant or that the drugs were found on a counter in the at least the cocaine was found on a counter in the kitchen also nineteen ecstasy pills were found in a on the counter in the kitchen the fifty more ecstasy pills were found in a leather jacket in the closet defendant was president in the residence at the time that the search warrant was executed the state  residence at the time that the checkpoint was executed however possession of course would be dramatic so i don't think there's any real issue that the evidence established really convincing first of all fact that there was both ecstasy cocaine the amount of the ecstasy sixty nine half the presence of a digital sca the presence of a screwdriver with a residue the presence of razor with a residue the president has bags that would be used in  of packaging drugs and finally there was expert testimony by a police officer chatham ramsey that expert testimony that the this evidence was the i would suggest that the point to be for evidence that was available excluding the confession was such that it which clear or clear that a jury would have found intent to deliver based again upon the expert opinion and the other evidence i tried was this there were also argues that this this would be is a stronger argument if it weren't for the fact that the defendant's girlfriend who items to him as opposed to what they were fairly i'm a kitchen so i mean both person would have had access to the drugs however that i think would not change the cases submitted