obligated to consult with an e to ascertain plans to review the record and fission to perform you know certain basic investigations where they're called for and perhaps most importantly to amend the petition explanation as to why the most significant claims in this petition were so frivolous that they could not even be argued that counsel was ethically obligated to withdraw rather than to present decision as we discussed in our briefs is the better reason this may fall to the reasoning where is faithful to this is faithful to the post invasion hearing act and is generally faithful to this reading of the requirements of people be reared it claims that issue in this case were sufficient dennys counsel should not have been allowed to withdraw because he had at least two arguable point counsel and no one ever even rocks the most significant claims in the attention and furthermore reasonable assistance of counsel does go beyond simply the rules if you want to see duties this court has talked about other areas in which you know the need to amend the recognize that because of the ninety day before provision the ninety day provision which says that in essence regardless of the merits of the claims after ninety days your petition advances the second stage and you get an attorney the score recognize that that could put a post of action attorney in a very difficult position because there is that limited set of situations where a post invention attorney is faced with a petitioner who got appointed then at that point you're allowed to withdraw from the representation because you would be at the on a ten under your theory in the rule you would like us to adopt in giving direction to appointed counsel in these circumstances is unnecessary that the attorney addressed each and every claim specifically that the defendant has attempted drazen his petition or will it be sufficient to say i think sam of the claims in their all in the practice the circuit court should be looking for is an explanation of why all the claims are for us many times it can be done and you know in a sentence you can often you know we've all seen some of these post invasion petitions that have you know numerous claims that are simply on their face legally impossible or are plainly rebutted by the record you can deal with you know four or five of those claims in a single sentence that's relatively simple we do believe the council should offer some explanation as if one of the claims however what people the rear does offer and what becomes decision agreed with and we would certainly agree with is that of course as a reviewing court if you were to wait for review in court receives a case a review of the record we can determine that in point of fact all of these claims really work royalist so innocent there would be no purpose and remanded served if in this case it's different thing because the court actually did find that it was not her and what's really you know the heart of this case is the fact that this petition actually does contain claims which are at a bare minimum are imperfect what we're talking about of course are the claims regarding groups of claims for lack of a better way of putting it you're right the the attorney mayor was that his name mails the post conviction attorney john starr was ok so leave the attorney head under the the post conviction petition  investigate him and then these lies that were made to the defendant in family to get him to plead right and those and those lies were number the alleged lies were were never in the motion t out that evidence came out of the money of that sentencing you know i'm talking about the attorney saying the attorney getting out of the out of the case and not talking about what happened below i'm talking about the attorney all for motion to with attorney had addressed that second subset of claims namely the lies to the family well i mean at that point the question is how it was they were correct i would say perhaps as as the record currently stands for everything we can see of the record the evidence that was presented everything else the petition these claims appear to have at least arguable merit now but we don't know because counsel then address these things at all there may there may be information from outside of the record that would but none of that happened and council hasn't said anything about it all we have is the record council had addressed this claim and said here is why i find this claim americans then at the least the circuit court and that reviewing court would have all the information it needs to look that over through should we remember prove it to be done well your honor i would say we should remand for the second stage proceedings and as a part of the second stage proceedings if appointed counsel whomever appointed counsel where this time motion to withdraw which would actually explain this is why i'm withdrawing his wife claims are frivolous and that would give both circuit court and reviewing courts the information they need to then sit there and and review that motion to withdraw and affidavit states john sharp told me that there was blood on his clothing along with the victim and probably belong to the victim he told us he was going to go to jail for the rest of his life that was that and provided by the record those things are not worth those claims it proven it is at least arguable that danny could be entitled to rescission of his guilty plea this point if it was proven that certainly the state would argue if this were to go to trial that this evidence put danny in that room as the victim in this case was being sold the state would certainly argue that could even imply that he participated in that assault that not only increases his chances of conviction substantial but when you're talking about whether or not to plead guilty you're talking about do i think i'm going to be convicted what do i think i'm going to be sentenced to if i am and what that blood evidence says when you've got an attorney standing there telling you you're going to go to prison for the rest of your life if you can somebody's going to be able to put up evidence that makes it look like you were there that makes it look like you were somehow a participant in this attack actual attack he was outside the made maidenly very poor decision to involve himself with this person bruce lloyd but he himself was not at all in this attack and was not present or and that certainly when you're thinking about your chances at sentencing makes a big difference in in the calculus europe line deciding whether or not bill and i should note that all of the affidavits the petition everything indicates that pleading guilty was not something that he wanted to do he was strongly opposed to it he felt that he was being overcharged for the conduct that he engaged in and he argued against it again and again but his lawyer and his family acting and his lawyers  ps continued to convince him that this was what he had to do and a part of that continual process of convincing him was this misstatement about a lot on the shirt and powerful piece of friends and your honour's again when we're talking about whether or not this would have affected danny's guilty plea because that's alternately the issue here the state in the appellate court made some arguments about trying to show how ultimately this evidence wasn't really all that or you know maybe it wasn't maybe this really shouldn't have been you know basically the argument that he could have been convicted then but that's not the standard we're looking at here we're not facing a reasonable doubt the question is is there  went to trial on these charges he was the only three he was a juvenile so he had a juvenile proceeding but again the standard is still reasonable doubt and chris hall was acquitted of attempted murder  a seventeen year old boy when he entered this guilty plea some of these very nuanced legal arguments we've heard about oh well technically one might only be relevant to show one thing in this and that first of all we disagree that those are entirely accurate but perhaps  most importantly if you walk up to anyone on the street and tell them we've got the victim's blood somebody sure that sounds damning back sounds that sounds like the to a seventeen year old boy who never even finished ninth grade and has and the scope of this right is limited by supreme court rules expect few one see as well as by counsel's ethical obligations not to advance for us arguments in this case counsel was post election counsel was properly permitted to determine compliance with rule six thirty one and the record reflects that counsel fully complied with the rules consultation requirement pathetically there were a petition submitted to the trial court that reflected that coun no less than six hours communicating not only with petitioner but with petitioners the counsel john sharp and petitioner himself detailed the contents of those communications he specifically stated that he informed coun of his ineffective assistance allegations against sharpe and for example stating that sharp forced him to plead guilty and the shark did not investigate his mental health issues and addition country to this and instead counsel street in her motion to withdraw that she learned of this claim through petitioner and the petitioner specifically asked her to look into it it follows that that she was willing to consider the claims the petitioner presented to her notwithstanding the fact that some of them did not make their way into  this moment in a grid the defendants petition advance to stage two by default rate the ninety days that's right but here we're at stage two specifically because the trial court looked at the petition during stage one and concluded that it was not frivolous and pettway without merit and that way quest to that's ok so whatever we said in greer don't you think that under these circumstances when counsel is trying to withdraw it after will determination has been made that the petition is not frivolously and parent without merit that counsel might be held to it should be held to a higher burden and let me tell you what i think the burden might be right and maybe addressing the merits of each and every claim i mean there's no dispute is there that counsel did not address the claim is to the lying to the defendant and  isn't this kind of akin to a motion to reconsider and it's as much your motion reconsider the trial judge's ruling is that is a motion to withdraw is it it is somewhat ever was in their petition something was going  e i think indicated would be proper and upon roomy and is to it least address what was raised in the petition and already then then why wouldn't she have the burden to address all of them not knowing what the judge relied upon in finding that it wasn't for rules perhaps that would be bass practice for that attorney to address all those addressing only the primary claims in the petition that those were the claims that the court may have found troubling and then so she focused on those claims and explained why she believed them to be in fact frivolous and not meritorious and if the  court was in fact troubled by those claims i believe that the claims that she did address for example regarding petitioners mental health issues on the failure to request a fitness hearing if the court advanced specifically in advancing the petition the petition was troubled by those cla than the fact that counsel addressed those claims and her motion to withdraw clearly convince the court to change its mind it serves little purpose to force the court then to remain and for additional briefing for claims that the court never believed to be motion to withdraw could have been granted notwithstanding the fact that counsel did not address every single claim in the action at bottom i think it should be the trial court's determination as to whether or not the motion to withdraw  her motion to withdraw is problematic for a number of reasons it's somewhat formalistic to argue that counsel must address all even facially frivolous claims if even in a single sentence instead of treating counsel who is seeking to withdraw differently than counsel who is continuing representation as this court has held where counsel who continues representation advances some but not all of the pro se post conviction petitioners claims there is an inference that counsel reviewed those claims and found that they did not deserve advancement presumably because they were frivolous and patently without merit we do not require counsel who is continuing representation to explain why he or she is not advancing those planes and there is no reason to require counsel was leaking to withdraw to or to hold counsel who is seeking to withdraw to a higher standard and not entitle them to the benefit of the opposition the underlying concern remains the same we do not want non frivolous and potentially meritorious claims to be overlooked and it's just as likely that counsel who is continuing representation could overlook such claims as that as that counsel was withdrawing to do the same keeping with ordinary motion practice counsel always has an incentive to provide as much detail as possible particularly where as in this case the court affirmatively advanced the petition to the second stage after a finding that it was not f on the face of the post mention fish in the post conviction petition contains two hidings one relating to ineffective assistance of counsel and the other relating to ineffective assistance of appellate counsel now under the ineffective assistance petitioner does or does allege that john sharp told him his mother and his aunt lies in order to force a guilty but nowhere in the petition is that contended that one of those lies related to some evidence that the state may have had against him and said the lie that petitioner alleges related to the sentencing specifically he claims that sharp told him he could was out he could expect to receive no more than twenty years if he did in fact the guillotine while pam's affidavit  did state that shark told her that the state was in possession of a bloody t shirt and that the blood was probably the victim's there's nothing and there's no indication in the petition that this with anything other than an incorrect hyp crosses into the realm of speculation and training understand your argument well let's say that was the only claim the lies were the only claim raised in the post conviction petition and in the trial judge found that based on their petition it was an frivolous and apparently without know what the trial court relied upon in this petition in my example this is the only claim made in in the petition where the been sufficient for counsel to move through with rod by bit by only saying it was frivolous and p reconsider specially considering that there was only so going back to best practice again let's extend this example to the trial judge that handled it at the first stage is unfortunately passed away and now we have a new judge in that place now what you found it not frivolous impatiently without merit but i'm telling you it is not telling you why it's prevalence but i'm telling you it is what happens then again i would expect the sides to ask questions of counsel to maybe explain why maybes and maybe deny the petition without mentioned before and force the court to remain for additional briefing when the court and if in fact did not require that additional briefing and then it would also raise questions as to exactly how much detail is required as petitioner pointed out in his argument there are some claims that aren't so readily apparent just from reading them to be completely meritless would it be sufficient for the court and petitioners that it would be sufficient in those cases for counsel to just say one sentence he's our these are meritless how is counsel to know which claim the trial judge would believe deserving of such kind of short shrift and which claims she would be required to brief in more detail i guess in that case the counsel be in a difficult position and be forced to brief every single claim even though some of those claims may not be deserving of in depth briefing treatment so as to avoid having to go back and reprieve them again so require putting in place such a broad a such a requirement would subject coun l to a higher a higher standard that may not necessarily be practical or useful in the majority of cases as the majority of cases do include moat much more than a simply one one claim i mean some petition petitioners could include up to fifty post conviction claims and half of those are merit meritless on their face so to force counsel to have to brief every single one of those named would pose an under burden on counsel and on the court and having to review those motions and and having to determine whether or not the briefing was mission in that  liberally considering the petition and speculating and cobbling together statements in the petition in an affidavit in the other affidavit and kind of frame forcing a claim to take shape from that where that claim was not raised at all in  court below in fact titian or wildcats through counsel did not address that claim in the court did not address that claim but petitioner also did not bring it to the court's attention and aside from one short line in his motion to strike counsel's motion to withdraw he did not bring it to the court's attention at oral argument when he was permitted to argue in support of his claim so there was really no way there was really no indication that he alleged made those allegations in the post conviction petition and as such they are forfeited  would just as we were talking about you know best practices review the petition ascertain the claims consult with the vendor in order for counsel to move to withdraw in order for counsel to seek the greer exception to the grant of counsel they have to determine that each and every one of those claims is frivolous and at me without merit if there is one claim that is arguable counsel has no ethical need to withdraw so counsel already asked to be doing all of this they have to be performing this analysis they have to be considering the issues and they have to be determining if those issues  counsel were to file a motion to suppress and not explain why the evidence should be suppressed you would expect that motion to be denied similarly if your if counsel files emotional withdraw and doesn't explain why you withdraw all should be granted without having all of the arguments placed before absolutely or there's a problem of the trial court and then there's yet a further problem for the review in court the trial court has not received the benefit of counsel's analysis has not received any information counsel may have gained from outside the record is lacking all that in essence the burden of picking all the claims out of the titian analyzing them fully stating them and determining whether they're meritorious that'll burden has been put on the circuit court that's been put on the judge and that's probably the role of an advocate analyze those to determine the sufficiency and then present their findings to the court and furthermore for me furthermore when you get to the reviewing court you haven't got an adequate record to determine one way or the other reviewing court in the very uncomfortable position of having to try to determine whether all these claims truly frivolous and patently without merit but not having the requisite information to do that and that's really the heart of one of the most important parts of wanting counsel to make that explanation in their motion that provides the circuit court with the information it needs to provide to review in court the information he needs and something the counsel already asked of you do they already have to be considering all of these claims analyzing them and we still have the same problem or is the problem then of abuse of discretion by the trial court in grabbing such a motion without having additional something else in the record yeah your honor i would i would say there is still a problem the problem is that we still haven't given that analysis we still haven't given the basis for counsel's determination which is going to make it very difficult for the circuit court to reach an adequate rule that being said again we're allows and the homes were all going where noted that of course once ahead we don't have to remand for needless additional proceeding you know like like most of the rules we enjoy or best practices even when they're not followed sometimes the failure all of us aren't in this case however that lot and they may not even always know exactly what facts are clickable precisely because they don't understand legal ramifications what we expect them to do is provide enough information and their allegations in their supporting materials and we do consider the supporting materials at this point we're not just reading the mission we expect them to provide enough information that judge for an attorney looking at that petition can plainly see there is a constitutional problem here and that is precisely what we have with the s more than sufficient to bring this forward particularly when you remember then that he did mention that specific line in his motion to strike or is response to motions or counsel's motion to withdraw and i think there's something a little inappropriate about expecting a seventeen or possibly a point eighteen year old boy to stand up there in court arguing against his own attorney and the state's attorney and represent his claims before the court saying that because this seventeen year old boy who never finished ninth grade and has been incarcerated for at that point some time didn't manage to deliver an adequate argument on his own behalf arguing against th the solution was to amend the petition ascertain those claims and properly state them in the petition the heart of the claims is there everything that needed to be there and that's all we expect