get me in davis when the front of all his motion to withdraw he was still on the misapprehension that he was eligible for task in probation here you cannot make an argument let's talk about what the court said davis ok in order to do substantial justice the court said that they found disturbing to this court errors made by defense counsel in this case number one the  is just opposed against this case which is williams the party didn't ask to withdraw his plea and i don't think in this case the party asked to withdraw his plea in davis he did and he did it in what appeared to be not necessarily a timely fashion in the sense that it i think he should have filed a post trial motion immediately or even better he should have spoke up and said wait a minute if a for this is another aspect of davis i think it would be a good please of our contracts and if you've never had a meeting of the minds then the contract is capable of be rescinded when he was told it was going to be thrilled by if and he didn't speak up i think it's pretty hard to say that he didn't have a meeting of the mind because it least he would put on notice that this is what the agreement was and if he didn't have way it's clearly distinguishable you have and you have the supreme court saying specifically that at the top the defendant clearly did not and was not given the opportunity to know what he was facing he was mis finding because it would have been rational for him to have  the stipulated to your bill you will get a sense in this range plus intissar i think she said two years which is wrong so later when he learns oh it's really true to life he doesn't  and i think that really the argument is it's harmless because he was offered the chance to take away his plea earth still a she also articulated that what he really want to tell the parents that there was no way that he didn't rape or he wanted the parents to look at the medical records that because they didn't show physical injury right or wouldn't doesn't it stand to reason that the functional two would have told him look the judge said you can't letter of the fund if it was it was not not put into the record until july but there was a letter of him written letter may twenty eighth he did say in that letter my book i suffer from ineffective counsel  explanation or reason why he feels calls in the fact of the trial court's not required to go any further he could just and the inquiry here know there was an error the state should not have been allowed to make a comment but that this court  found that that can be harmless so my point is what was the defendant not allowed to say during that inquiry that would require anything further what else could the to issue there are multiple points during the sentencing hearing more of the defendant was given the opportunity to withdraw his plea for three separate occasions of the record he said i want to get this done just a general allegation of ineffective assistance of counsel might warrant an inquiry into the extent it did the trial court more than me that inquiry here and asked the defendant on multiple occasions what is it to you or say mr b hoff did you know what what is it that you are wanting to do stipulation absolutely but the question is compliance before it's too is really about ensuring that the defendant knows what his sentence is going to be knows what rights he has the question of whether or not this defendant knew what his actual sentence was is the type of factual inquiry for a trial court to conduct by having the defendant file a motion to withdraw the guilty plea and then have the court have some type of inquiry into wall what candidly that i i have been troubled in the past by these cases were directly if anything before filing at the door right this is not one of those defendants as the record shows he is not an american citizen he has been deported in the just since we didn't spend much time talking about the way or the so for the representation issue when i was up here before just to make it clear that even if representing yourself but also whether if he was claiming that the charges were false you know should he have a new trial and that's really the wrong question to be in the fish case that i cited and i think it's relevant because it talks about what i was just saying that the focus should be on whether there really was prejudice and not whether the diff the manner in which they defend