argument your problem will also have five minutes or rebuttal you'll see the digital timekeeping device on my screen or time's expired i'll hit the gavel and finally please remember no photographs annoy the cark of the court is permitted to record these proceedings today guilty and they're after file the pro se motion to withdraw like the defendant in bridges misspells or also argue that she had inadequate representation of less than fifteen grams of a substance he's i'm not i'm not sure i think it also depends on whether she has a criminal history and in her case the trial court does ask the state about it and circumstances with a facially sufficient six o four d that there could be substantial compliance with the rule or doesn't have to be strict well stricter on air and i think people the bridges and of clearly point that out saying it has to be strict compliance with all the requirements of rules and so for d c because if there's any part that's not complied with strictly it would go back  for a new fix a forty motion and a new hearing on that motion and i think that's the result that you want in this case as well because of how applicable bridges is to mr alexander's case so the it attach an affidavit there the trainee at the post the attorney did a little bit more she filed a amended motion an amended motion and it was very detailed but the problem there was because of the detailed allegations in the in the amended motion there needed to be an affidavit there needed to be something more so the detailed allegations involve matters that cannot be found on the record and argues for her so i know he doesn't amend and that's that's the big issue if he doesn't amend her see her motion or her letter he doesn't attach any affidavit about the conversation she had with the counsel he doesn't hearing in this case there's little purpose other than to clear this procedural hurdle and i think that's exactly what happened in this case helpful does argue for her to just say that her letter is you know sufficient it's just the rule specifically states the what matters exactly are you referring to or outside of the record so her claims against tripp see so you're training ok wouldn't that be in the records and she was asked if she had discussed with paper wrong advice about something we don't know so the record itself doesn't doesn't clarify or doesn't specify what the problem is here and that's why we needed to develop the be positive but i think that's what i saw when i last checked so it seems like the proceedings are still ongoing in the record she talked about maybe not being able to pay off her silence or the probation fee or something like that if in fact there were nothing further to be done in that probationary period and she's got no other motions that are strictly related to the probation would that make this matter make no your honor because it's still a conviction on a understand why she was arrested there is no crime that is random i brought the drug dogs out everything which which we've been put out in the record that there was a defense that she could have claimed  reviewed the record and that he would have caught that we have to assume that you would have discussed this with her know what i am using that for is that the defendant was aware at that point in time at the very beginning of this case she was aware that she believed she had a defense that defense was not argued then at any point in time she ended up pleading guilty so a logical progression from that would be that she knew she had a defense she brought it up with their defense counsel and they did not argue the defense instead she conferred with her counsel and decided to plead guilty so of sorts on her if she failed to bring that up to or her attorney possible that they did discuss her defense and determined that it wasn't actually a defense oftentimes a lot of defendants are aware that if they're in a vehicle and someone else in the vehicle has the has the drugs or whatever that they could be liable for that she just said that she i believe she said that they were committing any crime the drugs to show well the police report which is not in the record but the defense counsel would have gone over that with and could have sent we smell drugs emanating from the vehicle and defendant now had to be oh yeah ok i understand where they're coming from now that is why i'm bringing so it could go that she discussed it with her we counsel case what case would we look to to say that we can make such a presumption there isn't i don't know of any case that look talking about absolute but here words and we're not talking about correct me if i'm wrong we're not talking about the defense counsels in advocacy we're talking about the post weak counsels in ad you can you talk well i think you used the word it is quite possible that her lawyer discussed this with her but isn't that the whole point what is possible and what is not possible there asking for going as far as the trial court or the trial counsel's noncompliance that's not our appeal here and there's not that's not being challenged as they are ineffective so i guess i'm not understanding exactly what yours so what i'm saying is that i think what the defendant's counsel is arguing correct me if i'm wrong is that because he did not  counsel violated the rule so when it goes back if it goes back what would be discussed is still your to do so what was in the record they could then call the defendant and call the police council and have a hearing is you and i'm saying yes i do see what you're saying is that what you understand the the answer to that is he being that is what i understand what defendant is requesting the reason shut up but defendant has relied on people versus bridges and i've had an opportunity to bring it up yes that's although if i were sitting in the courtroom because the same i bring my had been but the court dredges does say that even with this hearing that occurred there as was the defendant present in this case for any of the discussions on the six  forty i believe the defendant was aware that resonate yes so but there was a full blown hearing in bridges and here i'd like you just to distinguish but it's our position that the claims raised and bridges by most accounts are in the court found that what they did was not sufficient because none of the information was court found the record shows that defendant knowing when voluntarily entered the plea she had an opportunity to say i did not talk to my counsel or i didn't go through this in the counsel i don't understand what's going on and sat on the record she stated no i spoke with counsel i understand i'm not under the influence of drugs that would be how we would distinguish this case from bridges but your opponent to point out if however and it's our position that the record does provide evidence that that would support defense counsels or post please council certificate and there's nothing in the record that with what they stated in the certificate so to then say they had to do this this nest they would be forced to argue something that they believed to be meritless or just just and follow up to what justice barbera as if there is no requirement for them to argue the merit less issue why would they not bring that to the attention of the court i mean was that was a very i just have a few points in rebuttal so in bridges the defendant wasn't present for the hearing but in this case ms valid girl was so closely counsel even if letter and then counsel argues based on those letters based on the claims of the letter so helpful here does argue counsel here file that facially compliant prior to pleading guilty but the defendant still plead guilty in bridges so we don't we don't know exactly what happened and i do want to mention that putting couple talks about this  necessary and you know have that affidavit attached or some sort of evidence or testimony otherwise as the bridges or bridges or talks about all the trials were had for denying her letter is the record and then the matters that she's arguing about aren't in the record so it wasn't an adequate if she didn't have an adequate opportunity to lay out her so what you just told us is that the the certificate versus the f a day of it is that what you're saying now affidavit under six o four d has to be filed because it was a pro se letter right yes and regarding matters that are not a part of the record  no it it just laid out that she had a heroin that was under fifteen grams and that's in the charging document so that's all it was but it's a possession to so anything that happened before wasn't a part of the factual bas