consideration everything in the pre sentence investigation and then made the determination he felt was not mechanically candidate for task correct so where was the prejudice to the defendant the prejudice was pretty clear here the facts are really not the same song on my i missed it heard what you argued previously as to where you think the prejudice is but it can be it can be looked down a little what is the definition of knowing voluntary voluntary ple aspects of a sentence these are certain brain we're going to go into whether or not that he was annoying if he was told something that he could have gotten a lower sentence and in fact could not get a lower sentence not necessarily mean because he wasn't  you in particular the only person who had bought a ticket he had a statute passed against him who said that you could not be in even if your number was if we do my lottery ticket under those circumstances w knew if it was a foregone conclusion and knew it was a form well let's look at it a slightly different way let's say that you didn't see the sign until you came you know the sign was there maybe it wasn't who knows maybe the sign was put up on the glass door seven eleven that your wife picketed you find out that if you won the lottery you suppose we're going to go collect your two hundred fifty million dollars and then you find out that unfortunately you're not allowed to collect on your ticket he think knowing that then do you think you would have bought a ticket the first time around does the person buying a ticket have the ahead of time or after the fact that you're not going to win no matter how many tickets if you had hindsight would your opinion be the same as if you had foresight and knew that you weren't going to win who was going to say no to question of course why would they say no if you knew after the fact that you never were going to win would you not have said had i known that i was not going to win the lottery or if i actually got the number correct and everyone is on the same page including him correct right so when he pled guilty he knew that he had the possibility of not being eligible for ta consideration but it was based upon a false premise and it really was unknowingly made because the information that was available was in front of the law is the constitutional right to a jury trial  and you've waive your right to a jury trial or you waive your right to plead to a different sentence or plea agreement or four o two conference or whatever it is how is a teacher not prejudiced when supposedly your plea is totally passive actors are totally in the dark totally wrong totally based upon a false premise that the judge can do something that he can't i guess the simplest way to look at it is whether or not this defendant  this is not davis where there is a bait and switch where he pled guilty to the belief that he was potentially going to receive task and part of the sentencing toll all determined you can't have task and you can't withdraw your  ron and the record is fairly clear that the trial court actually did what the statute provided but the issue isn't one whether or not the statute provides for whether or not the defendant knew or didn't know was whether or not he actually did know what he was supposedly agreeing to was practically possible or probable that virtually or and i say virtually impossible because judges sometimes do grant tasks when it isn't available and possibly could have been here you know countless argument that this would have been avoided sentencing is this question who would raise their voice sentence if task at the end says even submitted a letter saying they were willing to accept this gentleman benefit of the bargain and therefore despite the fact that he wasn't entitled to it we will remain silent as for sexual i believe it would be to avoid sentence holer i don't believe the state of the position because that was the bargain that he contracted for if you receive task i don't  us based on his criminal record which is what the court relied upon they were not very good fifty fifty going one in ten the court considered of course at the time of his cleave when he may or may not have introduce misapprehension triple but i don't think anybody's said that no but i'm simply saying that since he knew he had been convicted of ten prior felonies the likelihood of them receiving a sentence of probation he should have known with very low fat he had follow the logic of his plea might be in the abstract regardless of side issues like whether it's statutorily authorized or not i mean that that seems to be what your argument  is allowed to invoke a law relative or i should say attempts to impose lesser included defendants but i believe that if there is in fact a heal the state denial of the motion to withdraw guilty plea there's been no showing that the court here abuses discretion the defendant was even assuming that the misapprehension that he had was reasonable has been there showing that  given these new circumstances that he would probably do well in a residential situation residential treatment situation so the problem here is not the she didn't receive the benefit of the bar that every one had a meeting of the