trial i turned to the first point it wasn't actually unreasonable for counsel to look the defendant plead guilty to predatory criminal sexual assault without at least mentioning that it's been pm and that his conviction would lead to a new value ation  and possible lifelong commitment as in his fifty even judge broad found that council was deficient and was surprised the council did not tell the defendant about about it and agree that everyone should have known that the conviction would trigger this u p a act nevertheless trial counsel did not tell the defendant about the heads mr smith put guilty and served his a half years and was surprised with the s v p petition as he was walking out of prison doors that's what so unreasonable about councils representation in this case and the state argues that when the defendant plead guilty in two thousand and five the court followed the strict director says collateral consequences seem and then  norms of the legal community now those precious norms require counsel to discuss with the client what may be obvious consequences of his charge and his guilty plea and the conviction therefore counsel had a duty to adequately advise the defendant in this case are the pros and cons of accepting his plea agreement and foregoing trial including especially in this case where the search for the best offense would have very serious and i mean there's no argument he was deficient council's if i don't understand how wouldn't be deficient if counsel to have adequate representation should have told the client that that done said this this charge this conviction will lead to an evaluation under this weepy act which could lead to your wife wanting confinement and that would have affected whether or not he decided to plead guilty that would be the deficiency and it just demonstrating that he they let's go to an excellent so moving to that the trial court erred in a dismissal mr smith's petition because it only focused on the relative benefit of his plea and the strength of his case at trial but prejudice is not limited to the actual you know allegations of actual innocence or a plausible defense at trial those things are play when it comes to defense understanding of the consequences of the guilty  prong it's really it's really different you know it's a fundamental deficiency and although hughes does follow pedia it hasn't been found reasoning it's enough for him to shelve it he would have chosen to go to trial because the consequence of the plea or a guilty finding would  suggest process at the end is correct your honor that he would not under the circumstances it would not have been irrational for him to reject this plea and go to trial even if it was a small chance of victory at trial  choice was similar to the defend even when he was facing deportation to leave it didn't matter how many years of a prison sentence he received if he meant deportation of the now smith's decision and is maybe attorney in two thousand and five he didn't file any petitions he didn't make any negotiations about not filing petitions and then one state's attorney mickey he came into office in two thousand and six i think it was i'm not certain he made a different decision so the consequences of having a sexually violent person petition filed against you are not latest certain as a policy that supports  our in our situation but back to your question no it's on paper it's not an automatic as he petition the s p p act in numerous i think it is your honor in that it uses such an i case i don't i don't see how the court and he was could have decided that the i'd have affected on whether it is rational in the circumstances to reject the plea and go to trial that we definitely focus more heavily on that than he was did he seems to really hover around the guilty plea that occurred in two thousand and five the state argued that rhetorical question below the judge broad did not decide upon that basis but of course the clerical consequences distinction between direct distinction between clatter and direct consequences was the law in illinois subsequently the dia made it a question whether it was there is a distinction between those two and of course hughes affirmed that there when you have conviction was final in two thousand and five he did not file a timely motion of throw his guilty plea he did not file a direct appeal this is all collateral he had several collateral attacks prior to this one and therefore at under the standard at the time in two thousand and five his attorney was not required to advise him as to the collateral consequence of the possibility and indeed his only possibility of future as sexually violent person evaluation they're for there's really consequences however the supreme court has never distinguished between clever consequences and direct consequences to define reasonable assistance and our courts have granted relief even though it may have been based on a those cases that were based on attorney's affirmative mis advice but the court has held that there is no difference between miss advice and omission and that the duty to give correct advice applies to affirmative miss advice as well as the