additional increase in his sentence and mr guys actually said mr cycle letter to that effect which said that his risk in challenging this ninet ninety one conviction on plea of guilty would be at most they he would receive the same twenty five years if he went to trial and were convicted or at most the absolute s this case is before the court on to the effect of the system's claims but i just want to be as clear as possible the ineffective assistance does now relate to mr dyce's performance regarding those regarding the post conviction matter that he commenced to challenge the telfer proceeding yes you ok so so you agree that everything happened before your client was the players making the first before it had been ruled on the state knew that it was going to lose the state made a determination that it was going to lose that proceeding and all the charges would be reinstated and so in advance of that they began a plea bargain meaning they offered mr si mr simon was still relying on man advice and distribute you know we knew that and that brings me to my second issue of an effective assistance which related to mr buttes advice which the view knew that the twenty five year plea was a good idea he form the opinion that mr saigon should accept that he went to the jail to convince him to pull not make a stupid mistake by turning it down and he knew that mr psycho must rely on a letter or something but when the  the representation of his lawyer in it that it isn't because the leak itself it's it's not a confession it's not a fact it is the judgment of conviction thank you first issue presented in the state's brief which is that the post conviction hearing act does not apply to the defendants guilty plea proceedings prior to the date those guilty convictions sentence that in this case is the defendant jury trial and in sentencing once the defendant was granted post conviction relief lamp withdraw his guilty plea which is what he said he wanted even knowing that the charges were going to be reinstated that he might face mandatory consecutive sentences and that he would be sentenced on the counts on which he was found  plea mr guys with true bad day as counsel for the defendant the judge said this case down for may twenty ninth and nineteen ninety seven for appointment of counsel on that date it was set for an arraignment the charges had been reinstated all fifty four of them subsequently there was a severance and he would to trial on ten pounds but on the date his trial waived formal arraignment after he was appointed that being there was a plea offer open for seven more days or seven days already in plea to twenty five years whether that means ten ten five knowing they were merely tory consecutive sentences but whatever would be equally as twenty five years in prison for seven days mr bute went to the jail with him once basically what one asked could he have done that the defendant wanted to go to trial mr hewitt when he went to jail with mr guys he testified that he did so because he morning to make certain that the defendant understood the ramifications of the f hundred case i don't know that he was ever that he ever made bond and i didn't calculate at one time i thought he would be released sometime in two thousand and one two proceedings never never did he change his mind he wanted to go to trial i told him he was making you stupid stick or in effect be careful what you ask for you just might get it and this defendant disappointed you see if it is never occurred to you i don't think you're going to be found guilty of these ten counts you can be found guilty fifty going on in these proceedings all the way through you on i believe it was wrong then but my analysis about whether it was wrong actually focused on the nine hundred ninety seven period which is when the right to counsel actually attached and it statute made consecutive sentences available even though not mandatory but they were available without regard to the date of the occurrence of the crime or whether the offenses were committed in multiple instances or accept this plea they write cases very big told him don't be stupid to quote counsel and we thank you and they explain this risk and you mr end they knew that this is a defendant of above average intelligence they knew that he had the power to understand they knew he was relying on a letter or something and they knew that he still believed that he only faced twenty five years because of his alliance on this letter or something under those circumstances it was defective for mr bean to interfere with the circuit court and say don't admonish him especially when mr hewitt even open court on may twenty ninth at the arraignment said oh by the way your honor at the appearance i said mr psycho faced only sixty years that was wrong he really faces a hundred and twenty years and then mr hugh would turn to mr b and said that may make the difference about whether what he wants to do on the the right to counsel can trigger even before formal judicial watch of several proceedings are commenced if i hear there is a significant level of prosecutorial involvement or there is a commitment to prosecution that's what supreme court recognizing  my answer is i disagreed with it in detail under balance because even though no formal judicial proceedings have been filed the state was committed to prosecuting they had made the decision to prosecute and so triggering event the six the moment right was triggered because of the commitment to prosecution and also be it's either war but here we have both we have the commitment and we also have the actual decision to he had a client with a limited window for accepting a twenty five year plea the lawyer had actually formed the opinion that the client should accept it and not make a stupid mistake by rejecting it he actually knew he was dealing with a client of above average intelligence and he ninth and saying look i made a mistake previously i had said sixty years that was wrong good for mr hewitt he was doing the right thing that the prosecutors should do he should be credited for that but when mr hewitt said that