conviction proceedings whereas the state courts initial grants of relief overturn over the novelty of that rule renders an adequate and this court should find that mr bowen suffers no procedural the fall what granting post conviction relief on a proper post conviction issue you know what i mean proper i mean cognizable close to rich an issue as opposed to one for example that could only be raised on direct appeal i spot on the stand what you mean by novel because it so so foreign born when but everybody else down the road does not for this particular situation that is correct and tell me what case i've never run into a case like that before what's a good case that supports your know versus illinois department of corrections if in your cited in our opening brief there's one such decision where the claim on behalf of the state was that the petitioner could not in that particular type of proceeding appeal filed for post conviction relief and based on the fact that the codefendant had won the courts that fundamental fairness requires me to grant relief to the codefendant on the same grounds and the as you describe it you say that the illinois supreme court determined that under illinois law his guilty plea had waived his challenge to the voluntariness of his confession eight of the excerpts and i think it's the one that we're supposed to be looking at his first petition in state court it lists seven ways in which bowen says his lawyer rendered ineffective assistance of counsel and it looks like it seems like most any state court would say you had your shot we entertain the petition for post conviction relief we looked at all seven claims of ineffective assistance plus a whole lot of other clean to meet for why you were denied due process of law on your crown and so forth and that's why you only get one cry oh and one of the other one intermediate court one petition to a supreme is that this court looked at all of those grounds found that they did not warrant the grant of relief but upon a searching examination of the record found that the records demonstrated that mr bowen had been denied you're claiming your petition for relief the claim is wait and that's true of the statute was on the books in one thousand fifteen i'm going to currently oregon didn't pay any attention to it until the bowen case that's what the other side tells us your answer that's not exactly true i think probably the petition its way so you're telling us inferentially that the matter was been handled regularly according to the statute and all the sudden this is an aberration where the court didn't play by the rules exactly and in the court of appeal position or says in his brief about delvecchio it indicates that there was a new rule in that case that has been established and in this case there is there was no news the court of appeal simply straightforwardly applied one three eight five five zero subsection statute that people acted in accord with the law and followed the statute and it seems to me that where you've got a clear statute making a showing of repeated continual routine people have done messed with some california law they've shown a pattern of fact cases that go all over the place so that one of what is said to be the rule was not routinely and was routinely not followed and if i missed something is there a pattern like that here what we see from the hunter decision for example is that a court circuit court there is granted relief a particular ground of fundamental fairness and the courts in that case that's how it court had to tell the circuit court can't just do it for that particular ground has to be a showing of ineffective assistance of counsel it is quite likely that this court read the prior decisions on the scope of the circuit court's authority found that there was a classic post conviction issue here i'll be it one that was not specifically placed in the amended fixation and found that that showing had resulted in ineffective assistance of counsel to mr bone and granted relief on that particular ground because no appellate decision had squarely foreclosed that particular decision that particular outcome the court genuinely believed it had the authority to do so and it wasn't until the appellate decision in bowen that's further restricted or limited the circuit court