sometimes should we consider whether adoption sentence is warranted under rule six fifteen this person to something less than six to other the other charges that he was facing that would would not have been admissible as to those charges so mr all these argument is that counsel was ineffective by getting these very prejudicial prior wasn't part of the trial which with which he claimed that he had not read it he stated that that he had been essentially forced to sign that statement if you look at the statement it's actually consistent with mr utley that some of the should say that support our mr u station and in his statement were the police officers testified that even if lee said he didn't want to talk correct and then at some point they said he didn't want to talk that is what the be in some cases strategic reasons for doing some things like this that's not the case here there is no well and if it was tragedy it was not reasonable strategy so for those reasons unless the sport sentence would have been served to fifty percent so the state did offer essentially a seven year sentence in this case that speaks to the gravity as well as the extreme extremity of the sentence that was that was issued in this case and i would also note that the comments of the trial court below where the court indicated states said that it gives this court no pleasure to order the sentence spoke to the court's displeasure with being i think hundred so and but there's no difference there because once you hit that class x level you qualify well there clearly was a difference here because and to fourteen years in prison or what he decided to do knowing full well that it was he was facing a natural life in prison if he went to trial and he made the conscious decision to go to trial knowing to damaging i don't think you would disagree with he disagreed with the plead offer he knew of that so this isn't really in prison sentence potential sentence for conviction in this case and he went to trial that's his choice that's his choice to go to trial he knew he didn't go to trial thinking well i've been told i'm going to get it reduced to a class one even if i go to trial he knew if you goes t he wasn't ineffective because that is a trial strategy decision and this court and other two cases from this from this court recent cases where this court held that the decision not to see this court in both cases rejected the act simply looking at the struggle strategy they don't they actually appear to be like this were example this is a case where the defendant if you went to trial and was guilty was going to face life in prison and then proceed with a possession charge take a bench trial and remember this is the judge that felt what were his words you know i think no pleasure in sensing your life and the state on the other hand has offered him fourteen which is going to be like that so how does that where you're acting reasonably when he may be able to save his life from natural because just as in fields of poor this is an all he will be found guilty and you can get that natural sense if this hypothetical guns all this drugs only second trial the evidence is going to come in almost identically the same and in fact it's going to show right away by the way and in that bedroom we've got the men's clothing in north one which is where the drugs work but also his prescription bottle with his name on it we know he lives there we know we construct it because uscis in the front room when he opens the door at six thirty in the morning he's wearing a t shirt a boxer's he lives there and that front room they find to bank statements with his name his wife's name of the address of that location and stream where they also find his social security card with his name this man james ugly possessed a contraband in the master bedroom so yes when there is a possession with intent to deliver if there are firearms it's also constructively possessed they get to come in a trial to show intent to deliver those come in he testifies to trial again just as he did here no the first night a conviction isn't come in but the two thousand five conviction felony conviction for delivery with a controlled substance comes in an empty death if he testifies and presumably he would want to kill and that would come in as well so all  well they can they can because we're not there would be a lesser included offense about but that was pretty far down the road ok i want to ask you about it ok how do you how do you this court based although the sentence is here more severe here the legal issue is the same as in fields and pool in this court rejected the argument that this was anything other than trial strategy but again your honour's even if you had filed that there was no prejudice here again because of all the court every day and watch the fire and seek out the sentence people the natural life of course the thoughts a heavy weight that the trial judge has to impose but it is required in this case and so the fact that he expressed that humanity that it took he took no court with all due respect you're under no it is required by the patrol criminal act there is no discretion here the only screen court possesses that supervisory authority that th again this wasn't brief so i don't have a case tough my head on this but just reading six fifteen and also reading the want to supreme court rules as far as who possesses which court possess a supervisor this defendant is literally criminal is committed crime after crime is soon as he gets out like after ninety eight up into ninety eight you can bet several crimes the trial court went through  them as a first class sex and ninety eight he gets out he's on parole for that one he commits a two thousand and five classics offense a second one now he's going to be a bunch of criminal for the third he commits that one when he's just gets out of prison on the ninety one and it's a two thousand and five one he just gets out of prison and he commits the two class sex offenses in this case this defendant is literally an approach will criminal that is why this statute has been in place for people just like him who commits for over twenty years he's been committing he fled when this guilty verdict came and he did not he was not there it's in the record they talk about it sentencing rest one up for him they find where he's out he's with his son and it takes a while to get him to surrender and when he's in the car with the officers after finally surrenders he talks about how he's been on his way to indiana and he's lucky he didn't run anyone says he was really upset and was going to take his rage out on someone and he told them they're lucky my son was here because it would have been so easy to  this man is a ritual criminal sentence is fair it's required by law and if this court is going to rule on the end supply challenge despite the fact there's no evidentiary hearing you know findings of fact in this possible to make an ineffective assistance claim even though the defendant agrees that the action at trial but yes it was rejected in that case and will board the defense counsel made a decision not to call a particular witness in the defendant agreed on the record with that strategy and they said that's enough it's clearly strategy and that's what happened and again even without that statement there was more than enough evidence for these reasons we asked this court firm's convictions and his se case but it's not an automatic per se rule and in this case but the gun was found separately from the substances and rose adequate evidence of intent to deliver with the evidence recovered with the substances in terms of scales and bags and things of packaging material and things of that nature you don't would not have come in as to the rest of the drug charge in this case as to the prejudice argument the jury that it's it it's worth noting that the jury in this needed from such it's such a challenge the state says there's no difference in this case than fernandez and collins but that is not true the amount of substance in this case is such a tiny fraction of