do not state that this is that they were not there for the sufficiency of the evidence to prove my client guilty really beyond reasonable doubt the writers clear that's exactly what happened prior do you also agree he stated yes so the purpose of these stimulations was clear it was a fine my time heals there was a new trial there was no chance of him succeeding in this rugby would be that he would be able to mount that he would be able to preserve his claims of innocence and that's not what happened here there was no intent there was no chance that my client was going to win this trough it was a the miranda here the trial court found that mr boehner was arrested the minute that he exited his vehicle after he was brought back to the house nice search based upon a ruse those committed by even a crime was committed at the time of the rust there were no illegal images found in the house and the only evidence that they had in their possession that there was a computer that that he also lived and had access to everywhere in the house including the computers in the house and that the appellant lived at that house only part time however importantly at the time of those arrives the police have not discovered any images of child pornography in this act it's it's clear that with doll finding images of pornography of child was a guilty plea it was not a trial and when trial found so told the trial judge that the stipulations were presented with the understanding that they were sufficient to suggesting that the contents of this digital ation this data will be able to meet a burden of proof beyond reasonable doubt and to that question chop house or insert yes so there was no doubt what the purpose in the  le stipulations were they were to find my client guilty there was no shot of my client winning this trial or even having a chance to be found not guilty beyond a reasonable doubt  into the nd hand will fix it if it was a normal state stipulated bench trial there would be no stipulation that the evidence would be sufficient to convict now would be a find at the trial trial there were valid defense thinking here there was the issue about the images creating the operating system that indicative of the of then be pushed onto a system has holes to be downloaded there's the evidence of there were testified that the computer was made out to salvage parts that there was no wireless protection all of those other all of that evidence if presented plus wit and with an expert to come in on that statement but i think what's more important about that is if he is itself on most of the aquash harass the corner graphic images would get so price and without having any evidence of any corner graphic images initially that this would be a secluded by phone that she would be making the determination of guilt or innocence or guilt or not guilty and that this would be the burden of proof remains  few moments later the exact opposite the trial judge admonished as my client that a mitigating factor in this why he's getting subject to probation or potentially getting census probation was that he is standing in front of the judge pleading guilty and that would now be that would be a mitigating factor couldn't be used in aggravation because he was accepting responsibility for his actions which is completely opposite of what a trial so the judge basically in the forward to admonish news poll one that this is going to be a regular trial where the burdens they don't stay and situation to be able to maintain control of a hostile intentional hostile situation where they don't know what they're getting into going into some house that we've never been in before and i guess this goes to the real question is back to the house by lying to him telling him that or burglary or heard of the house and then he needs to come back because leaving you can lose out and saw a burglar leaving the house and we want to bring him back to verify what