not appear to have a reasonable probability of success on appeal regarding the second issue while the language was a little bit different the court incidentally stated that had a hell of counsel presented this same issue to this court the answer would have been the same and it would have been denied it's respectfully submitted by the defendant that business states the standard that should be applied at the first stage of postcondition proceedings the question is not as to the ultimate merits of the argument but as fell below the objective standard of reasonable because it is clear that the underlying issues are issues that are still in the state of flux both in this court and cost the state this court has has devoted considerable answers the question because what made me really shows is that this is an issue that is still present before the court and that the court is still using to work out some of the issues that stem from edwards and bradshaw the two united states  mutable that there wasn't a good student counseling that goes to the second of the two the issues that are used by edwards and bradshaw in other cases to determine whether or not the state should have been suppressed state he refused to answer any questions relating to the case he said that he wanted to chill with her he wanted to talk specifically about his girlfriend about his parents the officer then provided brand new warnings he didn't say no he didn't say yes he didn't say anything at all and he didn't know how to focus right counsel right because he had previously done that twelve fourteen hours indication then and it's the burden of the state to prove that the defendant in fact waived the right to counsel the mere absence of the waiver we argue is not sufficient in this case the the other aspect of the defendant's statement is that when the second review the third conversation occurred with the detective to whether the questions were strictly limited to his girlfriend and his parents or whether it was in the broader sense what's happening with the case although what's happening with that piece was not sufficient at all  had course to crooning to a question about the specific investigation but yes he did as one student said his girlfriend the detective did not respond by providing warnings as she that is arguable within the law on the status of the law and given the status of the law is unclear as this court said in people vs no where in two thousand and nine there is a genuine question as to what is opposed to occur appeal and therefore we have to look at layers we're not here looking at the ineffective assistance of trial counsel we're not here looking at what happened and with what what happened during the motion to suppress because what the defendant has failed to do in his argument is point out to the court we're the trial court judge was manifestly it really is in its decisions he's my through the issues so first of all this court must look at the fish the good motion to suppress was fully litigated and you must look at the entire record  where the trial court findings were incorrect all he did was really the gate the issue of why the why he felt the motion should have been in motion to suppress should have been granted on appeal would have been different in this case it would have been that you would have reversed the case or you would have sent to beg for a second stick sharing and dance not been demonstrated in the p c you know we would have sent it back for a new trial know they were going through the evidence and saying this was wrong this was wrong but they never a few minutes while the trial court's reasoning was inappropriate more importantly the trial court made credibility determinations and  alternately it has to do with the defendant has to demonstrate that he has an arguable issue that justifies the appointment counsel to help him shape that issue and when the state in this instance can present proof that uses about ten pages to evaluating issues and determining whether or not this is an issue that should have been raised by counsel and there are numerous times issues where or where there is a question about counsel  in this case where the defendant refuses to answer questions and doesn't participate without counsel being involved until he's confronted by the statement that increases the course of level that was presented by the defendant's a general question of what's happening when that happens then it changes the ball in mandals and there was no question that the defendant clearly wanted to talk about the case is something written waiver given the moral