that the defendant was out on the kind of work because he was really kind of when he was released from prison on twenty nine thirty two then he was able to go to wisconsin and had a period of about five months and wisconsin where he apparently led a law abiding life why was there not a benefit to the defendant he would have gotten out or decision and consummate it and judge the act as to his ineffectiveness or are we going to look at all of the cases puts it in this particular with regard to this particular defendant and what was accomplished he was specifically four hundred ninety three days of credit to my question is are we to look at this in isolation and just look at this one decision that was made or one act and say because this one a sentencing the defendant the court said with a good network of support your chances go way off correct correct and that was in the same context of the court agreed to put the defense give the f when we're looking at ineffective assistance of counsel to reduce the presumption of effectiveness if we could determine from the record that there was some strategy that it's not ineffective assistance of counsel if it was strategy a very minor centers in relation to what he was originally charged with and it could be argued that the late sentence just a strategy that would allow him upon the release from the penitentiary to without jeopardy or without the possibility  prison and go to wisconsin and to have a support group and then to indicate that he was rehabilitatable you know all the good things that came out of the  knows but i guess it would have been one hundred ninety three days because the judge already caved on much credit he was going to get be there as it may received which he might not have received because of the evidence of rehabilitation and his good citizenship while he was on decided correct so if you were defeated the body been exonerated he would have been out with no bond because the appeal was pending and then when the appeal context and in regard to that i want to briefly go over a little bit of the timeline because i think that will help clarify the need to sept twenty second the defendant was sentenced in twenty nine thirty two that that is what has happened it's on a state appeal so defend this chances are good in that case the judge the defense counsel was arguing for work release for the that sentence on october thirty first it's not until november eighteenth that this who were reversed to suppress an issue so the defendant has completed his hands his three years with  defendant had completed his sentence on the thirty first certainly at that point the state couldn't go on and if they felt they had compelling reasons to ask for a bond they didn't do that story and the bracelet  and so he's able to associate with his family and the course correct and his defense counsel are arguing very vigorously that he had in packable performance when he's up in you know this issue changed prove yourself and noticed the family support that the defendant did take advantage of that he proved himself when he was out you know in wisconsin before the think i think a lot of this is also it's very important to look at it's not in hindsight but what was happening at the time and that was my went over that the timeline in  you know that the state has filed the certificate of pyramid just so you know there's a good chance that without that evidence and it's currently suppressed that the state will be on an equal to clean him to a successful if they had revote on i don't think it is in we're close to the reduction that he successfully achieved because the state is willing to deal down with charges it pills from i believe it was a levels first you don't look at a single act you look at over council's overall performance and i believe that is mentioned in durban and other cases and i don't believe that this was an  didn't do that until after the defendant completes his sentence in that case this is the strategy the appellate court probably wasn't going to reverse then oh my dear i don't think that there that according to the screen were true on that it would be very odd for a defense counsel to argue i wouldn't mind and that would be an indication that he believed there was a weakness in the state's imperial and they might and all that i think needs to be taken in context you can't simply look back you know at that point that oh yes this court subsequently reversed the suppression so we're going to trial on that