good morning and please the court my name is melissa salinas from the university of michigan law school and i am the stupor vising attorney for appellant friday chase i would like to thank the court for allowing law students to argue this case not share that when mr chief the sentence the trial court used judge found facts to score sentencing variables which increase the mandatory minimum sentence to which he was exposed in violation of a lien but this court should find that  objective reasonable despite the michigan part of appeals karen decision because counsel should have understood that's a fact finding at sentencing was unconstitutional based on both a clear application of a lien to the and existing state law development that foreshadowed that the michigan supreme court would find the scheme unconstitutional so under the multi factor mapes tests for deficient performance on appeal this constitute an effective and state law developments while mr chase's case was pending on direct appeal or shadowed by the lockridge court the michigan supreme court and lockridge would invalidate the sentencing scheme have independently considered and rejected a request and these elements of state law of fine with the clarity of the leans to be exact a judicial fact finding that was required by appellate advocacy of the fact it is the winnowing out of weak arguments on appeal to focus on those that are more likely to prevail the exact opposite of that occurs here and rendered that claim necessarily merit listening at that point making the only purpose of raising the claim to pursue service that doesn't mean that counsel was ineffective for not preserving it and if for example we see in people opinions have given counsel the knowledge necessary to preserve an online client so you're wrong about that the timeline that you presented is absolutely correct the black bridge of published decision was incorrect especially when there were other published decisions including operative cells that affirm the herren decision and it wasn't until at least a little bit of time later that indicate what the outcome of that case would be i think that was just the michigan supreme court recognizing that this was just issue with out there and that's the thing you have decision one way or another needed but nothing about the it should it should matter how strong the foreshadowing was and with respect to significant so i'm struggling with an argument that it seems to me under your argument are cherry our lucas taste and then our  meaningless because there's never any body who can thread that needle to say that should have been r undermine that notion but to the to the point that lucas and robin robinson might be meaningless i don't think that's necessarily true i think it really depends on the the to to raise every conceivable claim just in case the law might and i think that really is the point of the holding in thomson that there was there was no need for counsel to preserve that claim when it sources cooper and james as well that indicated that a lien was they on increasing a statutory mandatory minimum it didn't discuss guidelines whether state or federal and how the eberly good morning your honor and may i please the court my name is maggie turner on behalf of petitioner chait in my limited time on rebuttal i want to make clear that the strength of the foreshadowing issue and this is punctuated by the fact that haron itself relied on harris which alina explicitly overruled this means that per judge trenches point could not have been a  michigan supreme court with a doctor a year later she says cases therefore the best example of the unique case that a day contemplates and that that spreading of the needle as mentioned earlier would be meaningless otherwise it was not h majority of state intermediate appellate court and the court even characterized the ohio supreme court's eventual invalidation of that kind of thing scheme as an abrupt change from precedent it's contrary to chase a taste here where the writing was truly on the wall as judge tranch mansion mentioned robinson showed how clearly foreshadow that was from the very beginning even before hair on any it's clear that shape is in the narrow window between the michigan due to the strength of the claims actually rate this court has stated that strategy cannot be an accuse the lawyers palace meant the council has a duty under strickland to investigate his options and make a reasonable choice between them in thom failure to raise a meritorious claim on direct appeal is particularly important where the claim has stark consequences for the petitioner chase is exposed to a mandatory minimum one hundred and thirty five months higher than he would have been otherwise which is  years and additionally your honour's in referring to robinson coming down before the harem decision this court stated specifically in robinson that the elaine dilation is so  the fact that the opening brief was filed because cases though dave relied upon took this into account and found counsel ineffective additionally district courts in this search get have found that state law call the next case