up and because you relied on that affirmative miss advice from his attorney and it resulted in prejudice because he ultimately was censored twenty six years in prison which was more than the state's final offer he was prejudiced by counsel's on reasonable form  here shows the state made it on for twenty one years it does not explicitly say they condition that offered eighty five percent i'm not i'm not being critical of you in any way i'm just asking you do you have trials i do not have any drugs for ok so you not negotiate done now the fact that sensing both prosecutor and defense attorney said they believed or was it five percent that was probably a discussion between the attorneys now we don't know how report the fact that his attorney of permanently miss advised him as opposed to passively failed to advise him on something means that the direct consequence versus collateral consequences think shame does not matter this case that affirmative least i was even presented to real options you know i didn't have a chance to actually consider whether i would have because i was never told and under locklear all he has to show is a reasonable probability that he differently if i had a chance and i think because of all we have is that statement in the letter at this point we have to assume there is a reasonable probability that that presented with the actual options there the actual se things like that so i'm this record we can't say what exactly the prosecutors would have done would not have done more or something like that and at sentencing when it was revealed that he didn't send some consequences or actually fifty that all the parties misunderstood the sensing consequences maybe you could anticipate a claim like this would be coming up and he and he wanted to make the record defense attorneys always have to make a record to protect themselves and protect their clients it's not unreasonable for a prosecutor opportunity to speak up and and put on the record what he was doing and why he was doing it for exactly this kind of situation so that if it went like this comes up later we know what the pardons were thinking and way and that's too bad we wish you would get more time but we still want to make an outreach we still want to get rid of this case not have to do this trial the state could be disappointed in the result but still be willing to go for the standard is not that the state letter bringing this claim to the judge's attention it was never even addressed on the record we have the actual letter in the comma record but the transcripts of the proceedings nobody ever even brings up the knowledge is the fact that mr thomas presented it that's not all it's a it's a i rejected the plea on first because i was told to be it five percent how do i know it's fifty percent i might have taken that deal the obvious implication there is i got bad advice from my attorney and i from is from his attorney and as you said everybody already knows that his attorney told him the wrong thing that's up work that there was spread of record and in people be here's a writing a letter to a judge it is a perfect this efficient way to bring that not use his attorney's name or references lawyer but again the only that he's one is complaining that i got bad advice the only place that could come from is from his attorney so a judge to order a reading that would have to see is to ask ask these preliminary question is to see where the defendant's claim might be so the these issues can be hashed out on the record before we get to the stage so that your honors actually have a record of what happened and in this case that's i don't know what else you could expect to be different than what was he supposed to wave his hands and start screaming at the sentencing hearing wait a minute this isn't fair oh he's a lot he gets thirty days to file a motion to reconsider sentence he did that he raised this issue with in that letter that he called a motion to reconsider the sentence under people b here's another case of his letter was sufficient for the judge to conduct  they please the court counsel good morning honors my name is john zimmerman for this republic prosecutor's office as a somewhat newer attorney i have to admit that the sentencing statues in good time credit has been somewhat confusing but what i do know was getting at with that statement and i think that is what the state's intent was for offering this plea the defendant it was eighteen years at eighty five percent if it was going to be fifty percent he would offer just thirty six years as your honour's are aware in regards to the objective reason lois that's her standard under strickland in this case that would be considered collateral consequence doctrine and if you want to say as we have in illinois it didn't explicitly rejected either and the state is pretty as being a somewhat narrow holding that dealt specifically just  that was still a consequence that the prosecutor would need to disclose to the defense and now if you look at the deportation in a moment as a sexually violent person those are qualitatively different than good time credit those are independent harms that accrue in addition to the sins that truck were imposed whereas good conduct credit affects only how much of the send them post the defense actually serves that's not something that's settled at the time  sentencing such as deportation or sexually dangerous person they get settled later on through another agency which is a prism some agency there and then it can change functionally based on whether they are your honor noted he said he may have accepted it if he knew twenty one years was at fifty percent but that was never the offer the offer was twenty one years eighty five percent if the state would have realized this which is the second prong it would have furries face attorney and ask them now i understand what you're saying your honor but that is the standard that's set forth by the supreme court of the united states is very versus fry so we were bound to adhere to that standard and that's also just part of the test which is that he would have accepted the earlier plea and then that the end result of the criminal process would have been more favorable by reason of a plea to a lesser charge or a sense of less prison time so i understand your sentiment and i do not have and like i said the intent of the state was eighteen years in the senate was where it was eighteen years because twenty want to eighty five percent and so it was never at fifty percent regardless of what he says in the state was not going to keep it fifty percent that's just it defies common sense to my mind same as eighty five fifty percent was correct over there was a meeting of minds regarding the states intention in extending offers the senate would serve at least here eighteen years in prison the state could achieve such an outcome with the proper rate of good conduct credit by offering to finish a term years there is simply no showing of a reasonable probability that but for counsel's deficient performance the result of the proceeding would have been different and the absence of a showing of such prejudice there's no substantial showing of a constitutional violation but that was and again counsel made a comment about the prosecutor making a record simply because a prosecutor doesn't make a record does not meet an effective assistance of counsel and the remedy if you sent it back i can honestly tell you that the state would offer it eighteen years thirty six years fifty percent i know that speculative and that's what counts is going to say but from my experience working the pressures office that's what's going to happen and we all know what's going to occur if there's another trial going to be found mention counsel and as it's noted in the his own letter it's a motion for appeal motion for reduction in sentencing and so there is no reason for that frankly were to be had and as your honor stated it was already all before the court claim by just always saying oh we would have taken the offer back once we heal a defective never went out laughing because the state could just in retrospect say now we wouldn't go that offer and so it can't be just the state's own self did again in this case the state had multiple out of state witnesses they had one cooperated witnesses it's possible the state wanted to secure a conviction and some prison time without the possibility that prosecutor's able to track him down this many years later and actually get them to come in and testify or how they would testify we simply don't know if it goes back to new trials warton the state has to prove its case again  so powers is incorrect if it had followed pereira a different result had to have happened because that was affirmative mystifies and so therefore the collateral consequence doesn't matter and those reliance and powers are prejudice that seems one sided and unfair that the state has all the power that situation and find this is a painful thing the name of the motion the letter that you put as we know the name is not controlling it's the content and again he was