offer restraint and then sent the case back for a kind of hearing on the issue of ineffective assistance of counsel is kiss is back up and before this court because the trial court tonight that motion and sentenced mr sisson to five years on the aggravated even seemed to contest as far as the home invasion was whether or not there was a threat and so if in fact he was in his mind to testing the gun element and he contested the threat element though under this record that it wasn't strategy because he was also asking for unlawful restraint and regarding the editor kidnapping he was just discussing the gun element he was not discussing that in terms of the home invasion and in fact what we have here is the defendant got up on the stand in said i do not have a gun and he never did counsel did not when he's told the jury were conceding home invasion he didn't grasp that when the jury went back to deliberate on both expenses both the kidnapping am a home invasion that the jury would take their concession as to the elements look at the elements of the home invasion and transfer the common elements over to the aggravated kidnapping and also by counsel taking the position country to his clients own testimony he hung his own kind out to dry in front of the jury my client's credibility was destroyed by his own attorney and the state says that well and actually the trial court in denying the crime to motion said well no counsel had defense written statement what was he going to do that statement was never admitted into evidence and effect the state prior to trial moved defense counsel to be barred from bringing either then so the jury never heard of it never saw a written statement in fact my in many cases when there's a kernel hearing we have the courts have had the advantage of hearing counsel's explanation for his conduct in fact in the state's case they cite  common kelly there's another case because last week in our brief we don't have counsel's explanation here because he's a fugitive from justice that's not mr sisson fault either and this court should not be anything more into the record in order to find strategy based on the fact that klein is not available at the crandall hearings now i know you are so concerned about prejudice as contested in his testimony the counsel has to bring to bear the skill and knowledge as will render the trial a reliable adversarial testing process that didn't happen because he and the air to see records show that at the time that this was this trial was going on defense counsels on the whole abuse had adversely affected his ability to conform to the rules of professional conduct which i would say are very similar to the a b a guidelines this emission is a factor for this court to consider and whether or not there was a fair trial finally the co some errors will have a pervasive effect on the entrances to be drawn from the evidence altering the entire evan entry picture and that's what we have here as i said in my in my brief of the unique circumstance here where the jury it came down to a basically a credibility question between primarily superior around us because we should not he had some credibility problems for self and my client but the jury was not able to adequately and fairly assess the credibility to engage in that credibility question over weight because defense counsel destroyed his own client credibility by conceding the point that my client disputed mansion in any given case but that's a question in this case is it within the wide range of object to be reasonable representation and maybe some to the question of can some confident attorney have done public and this guy was very dangerous breaking into stranger's house with a gun and holding them up in a hostage situation very volatile so the judge might very well is adopt an argument to counsel has to consider that quite strongly defending his closing argument he about secret confinement was this aggravated kidnapping that is all we are here for narrow focused once the jury's attention throughout the entire case forget about all this other stuff i want your jury focused on is this secret confinement and that's all the jury is supposed to be caring about as they go through all this testimony with respect to strict money and with respect to the competency of this lawyer do you think that we pay out the ability for them should sympathetic victim who's crying about her children that nobody anticipated there's no way she knows because it was a stranger's house it was a sympathetic situation and he has nothing to say against her so  six plus hours later eventually the children start to get out and they're calling out their names and eventually the children run out and they figure well i think the children are safe so that's the reason why they waited in the basement and then come out and there's no reason b any different i believe that had my yes i believe that would have been because the jury would have been able to fairly assess the credibility of my client without his attorneys selling him out with all this putting my point testified he was extremely candid in talking about why he went there you know he was buying drugs and you know he was a firm that was the police were going to get a gun in the police course that statement the fact that the that the gun brand or whatever you call borson matched what the police coursed him to say in a statement is not a factor to it's not really that it carries no weight to a jury well the jury never heard that but as far as their argument as to why this was not where why counsel m