two reasons first it was insufficient that has actually interpreted this particular amendment however feed general question of whether a statutory amendment is to be applied retroactively to cases pending on direct appeal it's a two step process first it must be determined  explicit intent stated regarding retroactivity and if not then it's determined whether the amendment is so subjective which will not be a player after actively or procedural which will be applied retroactively as long as it doesn't impair  gets filed its case on the first one had a little bit more creative language i guess you could say and the second one more closely mirrored the version of the prior six of forty but this is th his concurrence into city not this particular statement would be true because of the use of the order if the defense attorney had just consulted about the guilt  war we don't it doesn't give us the clearest possible indication about what defense counsel actually did and in fact this court on multiple occasions has said that ins is the best practice and the reason it's the best practice is because it be well i think the context is important to the context is it a conversation between an attorney and it just the conversation is between an attorney and the waitress client th must know what he's getting into as as just as a book asked earlier the importance here is knowing the consequences knowing what you are doing and the defendant might think yes i have some air quotes and that is why it is important to consult with the defendant and to make sure that this consultation happened because that fulfills the purpose of will six of fourteen which is to win a guilty plea appeals to put everything in front of the trial judge at one time and which then minimizes trips to the appellate court later on as collateral proceedings and in fact i suppose i suppose one thing that could occur would be manages the defendant defense counsel's conduct in regards to syria or wires strict compliance and or simply doesn't show that this is do any of the consultation was on i have a two fold argument for that to my first question would be that it is sufficient on the face so merely examining the suit because shows compliance my second argument is because of the circumstances apply a basic tenant is that supreme court rules are rules and not suggestions and must be followed i think in particular that in language indicates that it can be amendments ordinarily should be applied in pending cases that's at seven thirty one however at seven thirty this court says we are mindful apply to this because why even though pending an appeal the new rule requires a specific form be filed right obviously the defendant in twenty fourteen didn't have access to that work file in this case counsel has consulted either in person or by mail with the defendant and ascertained that there are no additional allegations nothing in here which counsel believes should be raised other than those which have already since they're faced these two documents establish full compliance with six the words he passed and the essential component of the requirements of the revised six of fourteen although he obviously can't comply with this decision a designated copy of the certificate there is that supreme court rules are rules and you must comply with them to then saying that counsel who diligently attempted to comply with these two certificates is wrong because he complied with the supreme work rule on particularly if you put it in one of the retroactive application of the new rule where they say that  again the courts must make sense of judgements concerning this very earnest or unfairness of applying the new statutory rule to any particular case is pending before that so i think in that case you are required to that their argument is the defendant was deprived of you know fundamental fairness in due process so i don't think that the words you know should turn a blind eye to mad but i certainly think that in this courts in this district are following presumably your decision in the you that they shouldn't be punished certainly for having complying with board the will specifically in th is to ensure everything gets put out before the trial judge so that everything is on the record we can minimize later trips to the appellate court we can create finality with guilty pleas and interest i think the state would have as well and that  and this is again the focus is not we're not doing a defense counsel we're not we're not faulting him we're saying that this does not ensure that the fence due process rights were protected in this case