exonerating testimony second that his counsel five days before trial indicated he was unprepared and yet mr white was denied counsel choice and third that communication with that trial counsel broken down day's proceedings trial that the reason none of those three claims were adjudicated low is because the conviction counsel failed to include them in any of his amended titian's that failure amounted to a violation of rule six fifty one c and the provision of unreasonable systems of coun requiring personal here for the record doesn't show compliance with rule six fifty one c counsel did not make the amendments necessary for an adequate presentation of my client's pro se claims you feel that adequately present the meritorious non frivolous claims i described earlier and it's not clear that counsel reviewed the record counsel had you reviewed the record may have noticed these issues with unprepared counsel shortly before trial and been able to craft them appropriately with in the amended petition cals also did not file a rule six of the once you certificate and that's even after the circuit court provided some eight months for him to do so if you files that certificate perhaps we have a different case perhaps there's an assumption that can be made about counsel strategic choices about which claims to include and subsequent decisions but without that we do not know counsel is actively reviewing the record and it's clear that he's failed to adequately present these the mailing system in that situation is a difficult animal to say the least so effectively these are simultaneous petition so is that your language or do we find that somewhere in a case where we're looking at whether or not if they do believe they've been filed simultaneously that's the proposal from mr white the prior cases that have dealt with this scenario are lacking in this exact factual pattern we're guy says where the defendant filed his first right in counsel filed that if in those scenarios it's the defendant filing a pro se petition for instance as in richmond at the first counsel in that situation is analogous to second stage appointed counsel there is a pro se filing for that counsel to review that titian was in this case advanced to the second stage and was doesn't that suggest that he was not competent that his counsel would file something when you have a trial court level you see defendants filing beans all the time when they have counsel irrespective of what they think counsel is going to do they have a lot of time to spend on their cases and i'm sure that's all they're thinking about and so you see that quite frequently i think it would be a mistake to assume that that's why it was filed and there's no hard and council should have complied with rule six fifty one see it was on council to ensure that potentially non frivolous claims are incorporated in the subsequent trial and that's where his brother is now to apply to a situation where there's a disregard whatever it is the the finding himself has filed until such time as he says i'm firing that guy and i want to go with my own this but six fifty one c what's the onus on council to ensure that those pro se claims is the trial judge in this court ought not even consider what the merits might be until such time as the defendant fires comes on i agree that rule six fifty one c would not require circuit court in another proceeding rather than putting the onus on counsel to ensure that all those claims are incorporated in a single adjudication and can be dealt with a single time by the lower courts and by this and again even you once he does not apply counsel's assistance was unreasonable it was unreasonable to neither incorporate the pro se filing as a whole nor to include these specific claims first taking as true mr hall's accusations in his affidavit that he could provide exonerating testimony about the alleged delivery we don't know his perspective it's premature at this stage for the state to argue that that would be merely cumulative testimony that's the sort of thing that ought to be resolved name third stage of the bench here hearing where his testimony is live and we can assess his credibility furthermore by the council bryan came indicated just five days before trial that he was unprepared to proceed would be accurate to say the holes the stage we are in that david should provide enough evidence of potentially exonerating testimony to advance this to the third stage where his testimony can be heard live it can be assessed against these changes if you were near the mr hall's affidavit suggests he does not see mr white leaning into the car at all that there was no exchange of any sort it wasn't even the opportunity for him to exchange something with ms linda or that testimony is potentially exonerating even in light of the descriptions given previously a trial and it's not necessarily cumulative with mr  new perspective that we haven't evaluated in a hearing yet we don't know exactly where he standing we don't know what he is able to perceive and to judge his credibility at the second stage before hearing his testimony would be premature does not need to consider any procedure motions walkies represented by competent counsel indeed the right to self representation and the right to assistance of counsel cannot be exercised at the same time clearly as anything to as what we've already  fission should be ignored as it was by the trial court trial court in fact characterize it as a success of post conviction petition and ruled that it was disregarded it then in the said continued counsel's post defendant with the reasonable assists of counsel as your honor stated six five one c requires counsel to consult with the defendant to examine the record and to make any amendments that properly characterize and adequately present offense contentions if you look at state's spree from page eleven to twelve it shows the exemplary performance of post conviction counsel as your honor just stated he filed multiple amended petitions the initial one was twenty pages long twenty one pages long incarcerated to discuss the claims of them notably even on the proceeding below there was discussion whether defendant wanted to raise any additional claims regarding the ineffective assistance of counsel and defendant decided not to moreover regarding the three claims that defendant said post conviction counsel failed to raise these are all without merit as your honor justice connects stated this testimony from john hall s had to deal with on multiple occasions i believe at the time of when this claim arose the trial court stated that this was the fin its third attorney and he was either going to have to go for the trial with this attorney or proceed  defendant decided to go forth with this attorney regarding counsel's unpreparedness from the trial court inquired about counsel's preparedness counsel stated he did not being more time for prepare that shows that these claims are without m i believe in our brief we set forth the trial court denying his request to hire counsel that should have been raised and it was not raised on direct appeal obviously if forfeiture is what your honour's would like to do the state police force that decision as well again rule six hundred one c does not apply these claims are all without merit and if there is no further questions the state  rather than bouncing back and forth when these facts present themselves and post conviction counsels assistance was far from exemplary polow all you have to do was suggest explicitly that it was incorporated in the pro s and in fact that's probably what mr white believed had occurred that's why he doesn't raise additional issues when he's asked in court he's not the onus is not on mr white as a train to turning to understand whether or not these claims have been incorporated a later stage  rthermore regarding the merits of these claims it would have been ineffective assistance of appellate counsel to fail to raise issues regarding trial counsel's unpreparedness just five days before trial on the direct appeal and we can't evaluate its effect upon the credibility of other witnesses until he's able to give that live testimony at a third stage hearing it was again and reasonable not to include that claim and ensure that the case proceed to that