and where the court also entered two convictions and sentences for home invasion where one home was made a law as well settled that multiple punishments for the same offense it's a double jeopardy violation which is a constitutional right to this issue alone states that she told detective with her samuel that she wanted an attorney and more than one occasion the trial record does not refute this claim and she also states that the affidavit that she told her trial alleged in her petition that the that the video statements where she first implicated herself in the murder were not voluntary because they were taken after she'd been held for more than sixty hours without a probable cause he it's clear that the length of time that she was held contributed to her confession because christine it became more inculpatory as time went on at the time that she was questioned by the police  maria was only seventeen years old she had dropped out of high school after her sophomore year after after her sophomore year just three months pregnant and in her affidavit she minutes when she gave the statement after being held for sixty hours chaucer did not have a history of criminal history that would indicate that she had experience of being  guilty of the mark and of course that's not the law it's also at least arguable that she was prejudiced by counsel's failure to file the motion without maria's confession there is little other evidence against there is no physical evidence no fingerprints place and cover the person there did not recover the proceeds of the robbery from the only other evidence against her him outside of the house at the time mark and magic conveniently fled the state for two years the day after the murder at the very least it's arguable that the outcome of the trial would have been different i invasion there were four murders and her it's a clerical mistake and the people have agreed that it should be corrected as all that the defendant asked for in a petition i she said it was one hundred one crime that there only been one murder there should be one murder conviction survive the second stage however this court in sparks also said that if it is if the defense claims completely contradicted by the record then a survives even a high just  with her mother to the police station on november second between nine and ten am she made a statement to an assistant state's attorney the following day no later than six pm event points which is no more than thirty three hours and it's  maximum thirty three hours at that point maria told this is and says attorney that she had initiated the plan to out to do the robbery and that she was with the shooter magic when they were in the van and went to the victim's house that she knew he was going to go and rob if that point she was in for a pound in for a penny really her admissions later on the video statement or simply gives further corroboration of what she said her further explanation of what her participation was once she initiated the plan under both of their accountability and felony murder she was in she was liable for whatever happened with her  that she could not have a counsel and that she did she wins here child ha just says again we have to have an arguable basis in law for a claim but hodges also says there still were is there anything to show that this and that the allegations are based upon indisputably merit was legal theory where is there anything that would show that they're based upon fanciful allegations in the she had invoked her right to counsel and nothing was done about it and i what i'm asking you i'm uncomfortable with the state of this record good i'm looking for things that contradict what she says in her affidavit and i find nothing that it's on the videotape statements that she said that on her handwritten statement that she waived her right to counsel and our position is that her statement alone is not enough in the survive the first stage that she should have had the cooperation of the state's attorney or the detectives actually weigh them on this issue at all that wasn't that certainly was not his strategy that's correct he did not go back to the original statements and affidavit from her counsel or from someone saying that she asked for counsel she remained silent she said nothing during the trial direct appeal would have been a good time to bring this all up but she personally withdrew the direct appeal she personally dismissed the direct appeal there's absolutely nothing to go on other than her self serving affidavit now well after the fact when at the time nothing was brought up in there and again she had a right there is she had he should have duty to bring this up on the direct appeal and she personally dismissed the direct appeal so there's a forfeiture of her ability to go forward based even on that but our primary argument is that one self serving affidavit from her is not enough to survive even the first stage that she had to have more to support her allegations that she needed to have another affidavit from her counsel saying that they discussed this she needed to go one step further to survive the first da three hours she admitted her participation in the plan her initiation of the plan and so she was liable for everything that happened as for her right to counsel our position is that she needed to have more than just her self serving affidavit to support her allegation thank there that's why the court held in that case that the defendant's affidavit is enough and there is nothing in the record that rebuts your claim and regarding that  matter will be taken under