with intent to deliver a controlled substance the jury found on april sixth two thousand and ten dr is s one point three grams of the substance contained cocaine based on one act one crime principles he was only sentence for the new trial for the simple possession charge because this is a fail to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he intended to deliver the cocaine and finally she three raises of five dollars a credit issue i don't know i think sta overlap with if you want prior to trial mr dockery was appointed counsel represent him unfortunately that attorney made several serious errors which the defense of miss denied him a fair any evidence those areas basically break down into a few different categories one once conveying information to the jury that was pretty difficult to the defendant and the second was promising the evidence in the opening statement that was never actually presented no one in during forum here counsel asked some of the prospective jurors including some who served on the jury in this case whether they would hold it against the defendant and be inclined to convict if they were to learn that the defendant had a prior conviction unrelated to drugs and he told some of them that it was a conviction for a series of facts then in the opening statement he told all of the  opening statement now of the post trial motions stage defendant complained about his counsel's conduct particularly counsel's convincing the defended not to take the stand on his own behalf especially in counsel agreed with the defendant that he did convince his client not testify he then gave reasons why he told his client not to testify at the conclusion of the hearing the judge found that those reasons were appropriate that there were good reasons for the defendant not to take the stand and the judge denied relief funding that the complaints here simply want to scrap and the council was not in effect offended submit that in fact counsel was ineffective none of the reasons of it and gave the post pro hearing were good reasons appropriate reasons given the law and given the facts of this case now is the preliminary the very important  we know that one case law recognizes it is the very dangerous thing and likely to be ineffective assistance if i don't still promises the jury in opening statement that it will hear certain evidence but then fail to deliver and the risk is that the jury will believe possibly believe the council failed to deliver because he was on evil to the liver and will hold that against both counsel and the defendant and of course  them to come again and especially where the defense is talking about evidence that apparently will be helpful to the defendants once the state rests its case certainly in that circumstance of juror is going to look to the defense ok let's the defendant does not but it's because the defendant makes a decision of his own accord contrary to counsel's wishes the other is where one for seeing circumstances arise during the trial or certainly the first exception does not apply here because convincing its claim it's justified is that he was afraid his client would be impeached with a prior murder conviction and clearly on the mall in illinois any time a defendant testifies if he has prior convictions the judge would have discretion to allow those in and the jury to consider the credibility at the same time of course it's not automatic under cases such as montgomery and we'll use the supreme court as of course whole trial judges to  the balance of probative value against prejudicial impact and can decide in certain circumstances not to allow those prior convictions in it under the circumstances of counsel believes it might be important for his client to justify that he's about the drugs belonging to the mother that was never a statement that was made by the defendant to the police or to anyone else other than counsel now another reason that counsel gig for telling his client not that is not the same as the prior inconsistent ski and a certainly it darker you told the police or some other witness part of the trial that the drugs belonged to his mother that would be appropriate problem can say been inconsistent statement it's not proper impeachment will of course if counsel conducts a trial and it gives advice and or gives advice to his client based on an accurate knowledge of the law that may well be strategy which can or and challenge is in effect but it is under its handling of the trial in his voice to this client is based on this impression in this understanding of the law is obviously this particular advice credit in opening statement and he said by that time he and his client and not made a final decision whether or not dockery would take the stand in solo his strategy was to take a wait and see approach he all his options stand and the witness would have to have testified as to the matters discussed in the opening statement i think that was his only option of that one i think he had to do that or possibly to call some other witnesses to give the same information that this is this would be a very different would still qualify as a possession here we have one point three so could well have been off for personal use but the funny could've explained about the money in his pocket counsel said that in from legitimate working but he never presented that a trial and so the and i understand could it be you know innocent that he had three hundred thirty nine dollars on yes but when the police asked him to stop writing his bicycle he dropped if he ran they picked him up they interviewed him  the other evidence as drug dealing was very weak here there was no real in disher the typical in t v show of drug dealing found on the defendant's person when he was arrested in terms of his residence there was a scale of the day or night and again one point three it's a small months only thing there is an excellent chance that urge everyone to come back guilty position but not guilty as to the intent to deliver the one thing quirk in things they do when they use in his this divide them up in the small you know you know that's credible i do not want to misrepresent the record i do not recall the officer testifying the defendants at this this was his business i do recall the officer testifying initially that the defendant told him that he sold drugs but then on cross examination the officer in meeting though the defendant ever said that the earliest of the records again i don't want to misrepresent it i do not return a reference to business