without merit that they fail to state the gist of a constitutional claim and that just standard is a very low standard it's only fair when a claim has no merit in and here there is an arguable edwards violation warning to edwards first arizona where the police reinitiate interrogation after and a detainee has invoked his or her right and i think cumulatively they all the into an edwards violation first detective walden shakes a phantom paradise in the in his hand and throws them or into the arms of the interrogation table  counsel there needs to be arguable prejudice and there was arguable prejudice there was a question as to who personally discharged the the fire and just going back to help one of the indictment gave any testimony with respect to a possible robbery that that occurred and that witness that witness's testimony was what shape he didn't make that he didn't remember everything he didn't remember how many times he learned spoken to the police and the statement right yourself which according to him meant about two to a robbery was the same statement that detective mcdaniels a there was only one witness whose testimony was cooperated by the physical evidence and her testimony was quite different from the witness who testified with respect to be the  the suppose it break yourself comments and that witness indicated that the shooting occurred did the moment that the that the individuals and her entered the the house and that not a robbery at all it could have that intent to kill which is not would not have been enough to sustain a conviction for what was alleged in the in the indictment so here there the nature of the defendant's question was with respect to the interrogation that into the investigation itself or if it was respect to the custodial nature or the custodial relationship be it asking for something to drink or asking for something to eat and those are much different even though i think they stand for the same propositions as it does in this case they are very different from that from the case that are also those cases focus on the officer did say that he wanted to talk is no question as to whether or not it's about the investigation or whether but it's still a dual nature there's also really no question about the officer response even though after  really the only term and the only thing that outside of the confession of the confession was it was not into evidence that would be the only evidence or arguing for there being a  robbery if an officer with experience has never heard the term break yourself and says that the word brace yourself means nothing to him then it would indicate that there was no placed it on the table all or all the defendant's attention to it that a bit about an officer making a nice probing motion here or dice or something that got nothing out of the defendant the record is unequivocally clear that and zero effect so whatever assuming the officer did that it generated nothing the defendant least he's going to ask for the guns from the office right away says we can't talk you should ask for an attorney the officer continued getting booking information showing no even brought in a supervisor a sergeant and the judge found and i think this is pretty pretty helpful the state but the cops use no pretext to get the defendant to talk but continuously told on the record bef that he didn't have to talk unless you really wanted to and the cop that the judge part of the even rodion i believe was a sergeant the judge said he's always looking to see he specifically said the he's always looking to see if the police are trying to trick a defendant into he doesn't want to talk once more they bring in this gun i don't think that's really she asian trying to get him to change his mind i think in logic what that does is make the defense think he's my god i really don't want to talk you know they got a gun i don't think there's any reason to believe the police thought that gun was a means of really initiating or getting the defendant to overcome his early my point is facing a defendant who's exercised his miranda rights to bring in evidence that could be recognized by him as detrimental evidence has no reasonable result sufficiently eloquent in response to your flippant judgment needs question i think we just don't you know think they have the gun they found the gun they have to put it somewhere if you ask me eight with the benefit of hindsight or b if i were a policem myself i never have been suppressed i don't know if they should have brought at night because my point is and i hope i'm not being too redundant that was done in that it was likely in my opinion to reasonably just defending and the record shows that the defendant not the police reinitiated the conversation i would make the additional argument and i'll be truths about this then i'll get into harmless i've already told your honour's what the judge will of said turning aside the question of an edwards violation we're here on an argument that this is an effective ineffective assistance of counsel and we're is simply unequivocally totally emerge a time entitled to no relief a murderer who got a fair trial i gave you the argument of argument in my brief up to sion being inadequate is not supported that was involved in the crowd i believe the name was warfield hit tissue or feel to call the can say they were coming to get the weed they admitted lee didn't have enough money to pay for it and it will think only this was a robbery and of course the defense shot murder that this was no mere drug deal gone bad which the defendant as best he could do you know perjure himself by saying that but it was perjury and it was unconvincing in the jury could recognize that that's why we have juries they can tell when they're being lied to the defendant further of course as to his credibility a trial was impeached with a felony conviction one of his co defendants had earlier spoken of this is a robbery let's go the way in that case and everybody agrees lic means robbery and i would say maybe that great yourself with something white like a lead or something but be that as it may no question which means robbery that it was proposed to the defendant earlier overwhelming the defense testimony was his only chance no rational trier of fact would never have believed that preposterous story and again my major point is my major points are two there was no response which if you disagree with me on about the state says that they had the gun the gun somewhere which the gun was somewhere the gun was in the evidence locker most likely the gun had been put in plastic which means it had then process it had  confession outside of the find his confession there really was though there's arguably which is the standard here for for the first stage dismissal arguably evidence that this was not a robbery and as bad as it is it could have ben retaliation where they intended to go in and harm the seed and in this case that would have had been enough for the conviction where the indictment only alleged that the murder occurred during the course of a robbery just simply wouldn't have been enough and that that would also mean that you know because they came in disguises rights we submit that this is kind of what they do just like what they did to try and convince him to sue to talk again it's not their job to convince him to talk again once he