to plead guilty to a sentencing cap of seventy years and the maximum he could have gotten here was nine years he was sentenced to fifty years for the murder and twenty years for the attempt murder first sentence of seventy years which was the maximum he could have gotten under the cap defense counsel mark rose filed a motion to reduce sentence or to withdraw plea the motion was denied and mr allen and now it's back again on mr william attorney william zero four was appointed adri man and he filed a motion to withdraw defendant's guilty plea at the motion hearing alan testified that mark rose told him that he could appeal his sentence if it was too close to the top of the cap mr allen rely on the center only as advice and entered into a plea for it not appealable the fact a life sentence for mr rose ineffective assistance induced allen to enter a plea agreement under a misapprehension of the law and the plea was not voluntary as an initial matter the state argues that rose's advice was correct because a defendant can challenge  so under the people versus illinois supreme court these people versus homo that king has held that a defendant must claim actual innocence or articulate a plausible defense in order to show prejudice resulting from an attorney defendant alleges that an attorney's advice prevented him from going to trial with a viable defense that is not the type of imus situation that we have here and the nature of the prejudice suffered should determine the nature of the appropriate remedy so some more recent cases such as leavers united states have shown that more of a common sense prejudice argument as appropriate inly on the court found that success at trial is not proper is not the proper basis to judge prejudice and all contexts inly the comes by counsel's erroneous advice that lead would not be deported prejudiced lee despite mr have reduced i cannot speak for this court i mean this court would have had to consider the fact that mr allen heads p t s d from witnessing as parents murder suicide i mean there are some mitigating factors but the point is that you know whether this court should you know what this court would have done but that he should have had the opportunity to appeal and that his appeal rights were taken from him due to mark rosas you know erroneous and they say they found that legally they discussed only they just and found the lead distinguish an ineffective assistance claim involving a matter of trial strategy related to a defendant's acquitt was you know losing his right to appeal that he would would be rational to turn down a plea and it absolutely would be because he was thirty three years old a cap of seventy years is no but you know unappealable cap of seventy years is no better than a wind plea had he known that he could not appeal a sentence applying plea here would have been much better because at least you have that chance of going to a higher court and having another court take a look at your case i mean ninety years when you're thirty three is not better than seventy years it would ensure he gets out at one hundred seventeen instead of ninety six so here it's the seventy year cap that he could not appeal it was a bad deal and it would have been rational for him to either try his luck at trial where who knows maybe a jury would take pity on you know his murder suicide family history or he could live and turned into a blind plea and said well you know maybe i'll get seventy under a blind plea even at least that i can appeal and he was not he wasn't given the option because he was uninformed and this plea was not knowingly made which was you know the difference between here and brown in brown the court found that that that defendants in what did not have been rational for him there because that the state ha several charges and he got a mid range sentence of eighteen years but here is i just would have been more than rational for him to turn down that seven year cat if he knew that he could not  court rule six of four d defines a negotiated plea of guilty as quote one in which the prosecution has found itself to recommend a specific systems or specific range of symptoms or the prosecution has made concessions related to  rejected the adoption of a percy rule that a defendant cannot shield or it is from the denial of his right to trial where the defendant had no viable defense of people found a motion to add people be brown as courts must examine the circumstances surrounding the plea including the dismissed charges in the sentences that the defendant could have received if he was convicted following the trial in brown court rejected the assertion that lee lowered the threshold for