hording our first case this warning is cory morris versus administrator new jersey state prison  was discussed and in that case in those this is is it appears that the sent the enhanced sentence exposure was not discussed at all these not in terms of years that the judge said well how did you get the twenty five stand at the status conference that he was subject to the term beyond what he thought he was going to get you know make it clear he just said it is an extended time they said yes and then the number of years that march thirty first two thousand and three transcript  good warning about what you look at times and time and he did not get that warning and it's not a question of what the judge told them here the question before this court is what does lawyer tell what the lawyer clearly  missed a boat here so there's no question of prejudice here the big question is whether rather the question of the question of the impropriety the question is whether he's prejudiced because he was had to be well informed  work closely together you have to trust each other you have to be told and it just didn't happen here so that's where your prejudice occurs that the person that you are trusting your liberty to is not telling you anything you need to know and they can reason time what evidence though did the post conviction review court have that supported the notion that morris would have been guilty look the trial transcripts and if you read through there is so it does that mean your answer to my question mr schorr is that there isn't any evidence that morse would have pleaded guilty and the reason for that was you needed to have an evidentiary or example so then your claim really is that that it was  didn't seem like the case was brief that way because if the question of whether you're entitled to have it your hearing that's twenty to fifty forty two right and i don't remember i can't keep track of that it's a complicated but i all right but the crux of your claim is that i mean there was a certification somewhere i remember seeing but it didn't seem like it was a sworn certification i believe so i mean there's a lot in this record but when you get right down to it  the what we do know that on this that certain day march of two thousand and three mr morse was not getting appropriate information about what we know that as judge counts said oh that's we're sort of assuming maybe counsel w disagree with this assumption but we're suing the cause has been established on this record but that only gets you halfway home you've got to show that on this record it was contrary to or a reasonable application of the law for the post conviction relief court to find the absence of prejudice and i think that's what we're trying to get out is what can you point to to show that a man who had previously said i'm legally innocent and later at trial said i'm factually innocent what do you have to countermand that to show that if he had known he would have had the chance for a better sentence he would have admitted guilt in the in the witnesses in and find out exactly what was going on between in this remorse is mind what he would have done what's a reasonable probability that someone turned down a five year deal a i want the government to prove their case against me you can't prove that i did that that doesn't mean i'm innocent but going back to your question i'm drawing a blank on exactly how you worded it but he's the he's so he could have said well look i'm looking at five i'm looking at ten i can roll the dice and go with ten well aspect is face far as i see it is whether we look at folks that just together and you're against that and what why why should we and what he was given the work with i mean it's no it's no secret now that he was looking at twenty six years and thirty six years you only got thirty six years reduce yes you walk and it was reduced after the fact yes because of the bennington place i believe it is where they but now why the new jersey laws you can't do those extended sentences on top of one another but at the time you might just not like and risk a conference that is of ten years for both crimes and and not not worry about it or not no worry about a five year sentence and and so the joey we can take into account what the courts i don't think you should know i think because we do not have the the evidence as the exactly what transpired between this is the fan and his lawyer and what would morris have done if he had been told you look if you can take five and the risk is too great you're looking at thirty six we just don't have that information best thing to do as i said  just say i might be able to marshal some neven and still you have to come forward with a showing to to open the door to hearing i think we did make that shot he didn't when he showed you demonstrate that he would have stopped protesting his factual lack of guilt or or his legal lack of guilt had h provides for de novo review here i know that this i might be confusing it but i know that this case report this a court is going to be again noble review it's not a direct appeal ever heard of  is a higher standard with regards to advice not ok well now that we've got out of the way what about cause and prejudice do you agree that the advice of counsel was deficient here that we should just focus on prejudice no i do not why there was no cause here i think at this point just looking at the record as a whole as the district court was able to have that full record it's clear that the record was not the void of information that was given to mr morris it was clear that the attorney in this case mr ankle it's not only was able to have his it's i would say that it was not a misinformation it was more of a miscalculation of the time that he would be looking at if he was to go to trial and it was quite clear that after the record was cleared up by the judge which is work which is required of the judge according to the new jersey walls and he is to make sure that the defendant in that in all cases aware of his total exposure clear just because if you use this you would use the pretrial status conference transcript in conjunction with the status conference where mr morris was trying to represent himself in never again that asked you how could it be cured by the trial judge when he was never told what the expected sentence could be which because mr morris is now serving a ten year sentence which is below the range that he was actually as an initially sentenced to he was sentenced to the low end of a first degree doesn't matter what he actually got it matters what he was told what he's trying to make a decision do i plead to or do i go to trial right i don't agree judge i think that because the measure the effica of counsel's performance at the time the advice was given to me and this is now that she's sort of the most important moment right what it would a defendant is trying to determine whether to plead or to go to trial you got to know be true and cases that were not mr morris is mr morris is record in this case and his status conferences was not just one and that is why the record is so expanded already mr morris had numerous numerous plea offers plea status conferences where in fact he was trying to represent himself and told the court that he knew the ins and outs of the sentencing guidelines he was then told again by the judge what his full extent sentencing exposure could be on an extended term with numbers attached to them that judge was aware that mr morris had already had those discussions because the record was not devoid because of the pretrial conference taking that in itself would maybe be true for this court to look at but mr morris had more than one status he didn't just have a plea status conference that reviewed all his drug but there was before he got a warrior right now we had  indicated that mr anklets would would potentially be is attorney during trial if mr morris was able to represent himself at that time and that's what the district court refers to mr morris at that time told the court what his would be looking at ten years if i'm correct and then at that time the judge which he should according to and new jersey will ensure that all the exposure is explained explain to him and that he's aware of that  global offer and also know what he would be potentially pleading to or getting at trial at that time is trying to wait said on the record and he it is true he could be getting consecutive sentences yes he could be getting an extended term which would put him in the next range we knew mr marsh knew what those those numbers were because he wanted to represent himself and explain that he understood his full extent saying exposure with two consecutive sentences and potentially two extended marsh would have to plea to a factual basis and in this case mr morris made it quite clear that he was not guilty of this crime he took the oath he went to trial and he wanted to make sure that it was told and he did not do the crime and  information the fact that mr morris admitted that he did not do this crime he was not guilty of this crime that would be it would be evidentiary hearing at this point and would result in him essentially perjuring himsel and at that point no a no judge would be able to take a plea from mr morris so there would be no end result and evidentiary hearing would provide no further information than was already provided fully in the record from mr morris  i think do you think you you believe he completely foreclosed his changing his story his argument going absolutely he was once he took the stand he took the oath and he chose to and he had a fair trial and because he did have a fair trial and he did testify on his own behalf and if you look at the record mr morris made it quite clear on he wanted it to be known from from the very beginning of that trial that he was not guilty of that crime and that's why an evidentiary hearing w hard and we are because mr morris did a lot of talking and he made it quite clear throughout his whole both cases as if this he had two cases pending and made it quite clear that his position with regards to this case that he was not guilty he was not present he did not he was dealing drugs and he was not robbing the seven year old man it's quite frankly from my point of view have i speak for myself but my colleagues there is no way i could accept what he did when he went to trial as what he would have done if he was have been told the exact number of extended sentence would be at which time whenever he had his mind he could have sobered up very quickly and said i'll established mr morris was not only told that he would be he could potentially get an extended term on both cases and consecutive sentences which ends up not being the case because he was tried for the first robbery he was tried for that second he cannot get an extended term he got it that sentence was incorrect and was corrected and mr morris is only serving a ten year sentence with an eighty five percent patrol parole ineligibility he's not serving a twenty year sentence he's not extended term so essentially he's looking at he essentially got twenty six years as opposed to the twenty five day he was told and told over again that he could potentially have had if he went to trial in both cases so where is the prejudice for mr morris he turned down a five year eighty five percent offer knowing that his exposure could still be twenty five years if we if we do not extend the record to he would have taken a deal and the fact that he testified puts us in no further position then we went to bennett because these are to testify that he did not participate in the robbery and he was not there he said that he was doing other things he was myself but i'm sure you have the number of people that see the light of day when they know what they could face that's a mark would never he never saw the light i guess i guess the point of your argument is halle is that if he didn't find the possibility of twenty five years persuasive to take the five year feel he wouldn't found the possibility of twenty six persuading more persuasive i know you are but he's twenty six the right number there was any looking at twenty six is there right now he wasn't looking at more than twenty six no attentional no because he can only get one extended term they went to trial in the first robbery on the second robbery first the robbery of the sixty year old man a try first as opposed to this case which was the seven year old man who tried second because of that he could not get an extended term and two cases so it does not matter he would never have and he would have never been able to in should not have been given to extend the terms  and so at the very most he was going to get was a ten year sentence with a five percent what do you have in the record besides his trial testimony about factual or legal innocence you have anything in the record from pretrial hearings or other things where he is insisting that he's either legally innocent or factually innocent the only thing in the record was when he made the motion to represent himself that he wanted to that he wanted to tell his story in don't he couldn't be held legally liable because of his ideas about what the law was or yes and he made it clear throughout the record that his position politically or otherwise about how he wanted to be able to prove that and show that and let the jury hear him but even throughout the trial he wanted his voice heard throughout the trial with regards to why he thinks this was  he was falsely accused or how it was this case was something that should not be heard in he was not quiet about it and it was quite clear that at that point mr morris had taken control of a lot of what he was doing  fact or prejudice believe it might have been but there was no good but it was not based on any testimony no evidence was presented at all there but there there was it's based on the record though isn't it i mean  record of i mean this this gentleman did tell the trial court that he was legally not guilty right in did not the state post conviction court latch on to that to say well if he's insisting he's not during his post conviction hearing he said i would have lie to get the better deal you don't have that kind of thing right here you know i have more saying i would have lied and said i was guilty he was very well we just not rely on those convictions judge could not rely on anything said that what i'm saying is the post conviction judge cannot rely on what was it a trial to determine what was go what morris would have done if he'd been given the right information because he because you don't know what morris would have done we have to get morse on the stand safe i've been told i was looking at this much time i would have sung a different tune thank you