argument i would like to focus on the second issue and that is that the petition made a substantial showing that mr god wants constitutional rights to the effective assistance of trial and appellate counsel were violated and that therefore his case  remain for an evidentiary hearing our supreme court has advised that the purpose of the post conviction hearing act is to give defendants one complete opportunity to show a substantial denial of their constitutional rights and the second stage mr gubb what was required to make a substantial showing a constitutional violation importantly at this date he is not required to prove his claims instead all we clear that defense counsel has the duty to correctly inform the dependent of the consequences of either accepting or rejecting a plea and then a defendant who goes to trial instead of taking a more favorable plea without knowing the consequences is prejudice when the sadness is imposed is more severe than the sentence offered and when but for counsel's error the defendant would have accepted the plea in this warrant af he would have accepted the state's offer of six years on the single crim criminal sexual abuse charge now under the law in taking this true these facts make a substantial selling of ineffective assistance of counsel the state our news that mr godlike was not prejudice because he received the minimum aggregate term of fifteen years but that misses the point according to him the sentence he was offered was six years which this was substantially lower than the sentence he the defendant in that case allege that counsel failed to inform him of the possibility of consecutive sentences if convicted and that had he known he would have accepted the state's offer of the lesser sentence and the occult court noted that this type of claim typically involve off the record facts and therefore could only be resolved at that evidentiary hearing now the state does not distinguish williams or it mention it and it's free their primary argument is that mr gaubatz claims are contradicted by the record but the parts said nothing about the requirement of the sentence were mandated to run consecutively the state also coins two statements made by the prosecutor at sentencing and mr got a lot at the hearing on his crank a motion but nothing when those statements reveal claim the petition also made the site substantial showing that appellate counsel was ineffective for not raising an issue about trial counsel's failure to object and exclude police officers opinion testimony that mr godlike demeanor probability that the appeal would have been successful and again at this stage mr gubb what was only required to make a substantial showing up in effect of assistance of appellate counsel here the underlying error was trial counsel's ineffective assistance in failing to object when the state deliberately and repeatedly elicited improper testimony from its police witnesses that god watches behavior and demeanor during their interview indicated he was guilty this evidence has been referred use the bar what they used to be more specific detective breathed rebus testified after he described his his demeanor that based on his experience of having h by saying that basically he behaved the way that other guilty sex offenders the detective said interview behaved didn't the officers also testified that he said things that were consistent with you that's that's correct your honor that's correct that the they said he made some somewhat inculpatory statements however he also did not committing the most serious of the charges against him and i think that's what the problem here and that's why it makes it so prejudicial because i think the state the state understands the importance of the sabbath ends and they understand that a confession is one of the most powerful pieces of serious charges against him and that's that's when you know they deliberately elicited the testimony about his demeanor and detective read this is improper opinion that his demeanor was consistent with guilty sex offenders to turn his  into basically a full blown compassion so you know given the importance of this evidence of the state's case and the prejudicial nature of police opinion statements going to look the ultimate issue of fact here  in this case is that he rejected a more under the law he rejected a more favorable offer of six years on one charge without understanding the consequences that his sentence was or required faking that there was a possibility is different than knowing the consequences that his sentences were required to be mandatory consecutive and factoring that into his decision in terms of whether to reject the six year all case and the trial judge in the circuit court and for mr gubb lot that basically gave him an ultimatum that he would either have to proceed pro se on his post conviction petition or proceed with his to desk or to no one but he felt forced to waive his right to post conviction counsel given the court's ultimatum and really the court's all tomatoes did not have a legal basis because the motion when presented with this motion the truckers are required to conduct a preliminary inquiry into the claim but it's not allowed and what did happen here during this inquiry is for the state to take an adversarial role during the proceedings reason for this was explained in the but in fields and jolly and that is that the purpose is to have a neutral trailer that evaluate the claims and to make an objective record for review and the ethical circumvented when the court allows the state to bias the record against a pro se to find it but here the look on the benefits or really is that when a preliminary hearing turns into an adversarial proceeding the bend it without leaving his right to be represented by counsel at a critical judge i shouldn't have withdrawn my motion to dismiss this attorney i don't want you this went on for almost a year and a half the public defender the bad back and forth point where he said listen you don't want the public defender and i want standby counsel in other words i want to be the attorney but i want somebody who actually knows far more sitting next to this defendant proceeded proceed it was the defendant's joyce it was a choice he had the right man his allegation is post conviction titian of ineffective assistance  whether or not he told the truth when they interviewed him they were entitle to testify as to what the defendant said in those interviews and how the defendant acted what they  defense counsel virtually said nothing i mean they were there in order to keep this case on track and that's all they did the trail judge himself just in the different in the d counsel argues that the way that the waiver postcondition counsel was knowing and intelligent because for several hearings there was a back and forth as to whether mr got a black wanted to represent himself or whether he wanted to proceed per se and i would say to suggest that before shows that his waiver was not unequivocal but aside from that fact because those hearings   private counsel appeared along with post conviction counsel and that is really when post conviction counsel indicate that indicated that he was just not going to represent m that mr godlike knew about the maximum sentence is really irrelevant to this claim because of the claim is that he was a trainee be able to advice him of the consequences of going to trial so he was not could be harmless because there's no prejudice because he knew that he could have possibly gotten up to thirty or so what's prejudicial is i'm not knowing that his sentences would be consecutive he rejected an offer of six years that's that's the crucial outlets claim that counsel did not adequately discuss his case with that which frankly i don't know how the what how the present your would even know that and then repeatedly interjecting possible justifications for counsel's actions to to