conclusion of that hearing the judge denied relief the single issues raised in this appeal the judge's order to nine post conviction relief was against the manifest weight of the contradicted heard gunshots ring out and one of them struck an injured here he further told police he didn't see the shooter didn't know who the shooter was and he had no idea as to anybody who might have the motivation to do  it as they were and defendant fired additional shots in their direction corey martin meanwhile testified that at some point after the incident he was in the in the in the county jail awaiting charges on she testified at trial and furthermore that he was coerced by the trial prosecutor in to giving false testimony against the defendant postcondition post was appointed counsel added some additional issues that are not before the court today ultimately the case proceeded to another injury hearing it took about six and a half years from the time the petition was filed until the evidence rehearing was  unfortunately in that time the defense maust touch with corey martin didn't know worry was couldn't find it counsels requests the judge appointed an investigator to search for more and the number two that he had received a favorable plea deal from the state which was not divulged to the jury trial no good of a post conviction judge correctly noted that there was no evidence presented of the deal there was evidence presented as to the sentences mr morton alternately received on those drug charges that he was waiting for the four in the county jail and his conviction co that the trial prosecutors and listen to the perjury trial from corey martin the judge did go on to say that even if there was any earlier with respect to martin's testimony in effect it incriminating statements is among the most powerful in from paul in the evidence that can be presented at a criminal trial flip side of that is that it's among the most prejudicial evidence they can be presented as i mentioned before in response to justice coroners question the prosecution trust him only a trial from the two alleged our witnesses evident cooper was somewhat problematic because as i pointed out all those the speak correctly  believe i'm not going to believe them but it's very possible that the jury voted to convict in this case based on the testimony of corey moore again evidence that only case law recognizes is a moment of most the trial testimony of corey moore and i think the state on appeal overvalues the testimony of abbott and cooper in addition as a mission previously in talking about more the judge talked about the we and then he testified as other details of the the events in question and that of course in this recantation affidavit he said it in none of i didn't know i knew that that was all based on pressure so clearly there was some some contradiction of course martin's affidavit and it's clear that court martin and i'm sure this is in part why the trial court basically dismissed that af under extraordinary circumstances and the state doesn't see how this is an extraordinary circumstance every recantation involves somebody going back on something they said earlier there's nothing special about this case there's no there's no testimony there's no detail here and cooper testified to defend him and that we're going to fight that's why i left the party these are the only two men a testified as to the scene on the street and they're both a very consistent with each other and of course would come back and finish the job that's why he didn't tell authorities who shot him even though he knew and he also said you might get involved in a court case i think that's pretty reasonable i think that we can all understand why somebody was just by somebody maybe afraid of something that person in the future and who were on here who i don't think we have i could be wrong but i believe the record doesn't explain why why he didn't pick out t and also makes no sense to me that he would say to the police well i just didn't want to get involved i mean when you're the function he was to say you're involved that sounds more like a rd party eyewitness to an incident the affidavit didn't mention deal and that's true but that's only a good part of this due process violation of argument so forth in the event of post conviction petition and i'm not arguing today