would not have pled guilty but concerts here the deficient performance is clear from the record mr peters counsel without performing any investigation about mr vegas criminal background suggested that if mr grunow pled guilty he would receive a sentence of five years after the pre sentence memorandum arrived he wrote a letter defender and anybody who's practices a public defender knows that clients are notoriously unreliable for providing an accurate criminal history for a number reasons some of them may just be that things seem insignificant to none that are in fact tremendously exactly what he told his counsel however it is clear from the letter and clear from the go see people in it that counsel knew that he had two prior felony convictions which i believe is an accurate representation of his criminal record but  letter however mr baker we wind up on when he pled guilty his counsel telling them that he was going to receive a five year that's part of your estimate is is troubling and weave in and of itself because mr baden was charged with sexual assault on a minor on the conduct charge was he being a thirty year old man looking the vagina of a six year old girl it is difficult for me to imagine a public defender or any defense lawyer saying i think that we can get to a five year sentence whether mr bader had any criminal history or not i didn't this case that's what his lawyer did he said i think we can get you five years and then lo and behold when he after he failed to investigate mr baker's record and had him think guilty something where he was exposed to a life sentence and that's exactly what mr bennett mr bennett was relying on his counsel telling him he was going to get five lawyer he says drawing on time the lawyer tells him look you know it's it's your knack you can do five years or you can do you can get out of prison when you're forty three or you can get out of prison when you're fifty eight it's up to you and so he comes back and saying oh you know maybe we should ask for ten years what mr bennett got was a life sentence that wasn't even mr baker's radar what he was going to receive first sentence based on the representations made to him by his counsel he trusted hi charged with two other two other counts neither of which carry life sentences and one possibly would have mers so there was just he would have had no incentive to accept this negotiation if you thought that that was realistic possibility but he relied on his lawyer telling him that he was going to receive five years and just because he gave the right answer asked a plea hearing is not conclusive this court has found that in chris good morning america live in that the attorney general on behalf of the respondents first i'd like to be clear the ballot certified issue here is and it's not whether or not defense counsel grossly this characterize proceedings what the potential length of the sentence was what happened in this case mr baker was originally charged with a single count of sexual assault on a minor under the age of fourteen and two counts of lewd ness with a minor under the age of fourteen  sexual assault without the enhancement that it was on a minor and by doing so he saved himself a potential fourteen years at the minimum term of the sense until i was eligible for parole so he did receive a substantial misled well there was no misleading i think what that what you're seeing there when he did that after the present investigation report he not is simply buyer's remorse he didn't like what the what the reports said he knew at that point the jig was up because he got caught in his lies prison who didn't represent himself across a all they would have to do is say well my attorney transferred something and if that's all it takes i don't have a formidable barrier you have no barrier at all this case is even worse than that and that is fact typical  credibility findings i think it's even stronger martial be long berger says that that's that's within the province of the state court that had the opportunity to to observe the testimony of the witnesses and that there's no place for a federal court first i'd like to point out there's an independent duty for lawyers to investigate this court has found in johnson versus baldwin that prejudiced from failing to investigate is not avoided by the fact that the client misinformed his lawyer and it's not clear that that's exactly what happened although the record is quite confusing on that he did at least tell his lawyer he had to fill monies there were other more minor convictions his lawyer obviously didn't know about  additionally with respect to the court's question regarding the credibility finding even if the finding that mr bennett is not credible change in any way the fact that the lawyer is the one who sent the letter saying gee i told you you were going to get five years but it doesn't look like it because i didn't bother to investigate your background  so the lawyers letter on its own gives the foundation for this claim now among credibility was that he relied on th litigation when he got the letter from his lawyer he immediately filed a motion to withdraw his plea saying my lawyer said i was going to get five years he has every step of the way that's what right is that what triggered the hearing that's correct but the lawyer at the hearing didn't say anything consistent with that other than i have not guaranteed a sentence but we have no other way of knowing of how mr beignets took the advice of his counsel them from hearing it from him i mean the lawyer saying i stand out of time you can finish this if the lawyer saying you know this is what you're going to get me have impacted mr vega as you promised that he would light