his initial motion to a drug guilty plea that he filed shortly after he told the court and on june third two thousand and fourteen that he wished to  five hears here but she did not say at that time she would not address issues with respect what took place during a police proceeding and in fact didn't address the pleading that he did file subsequent to that hearing i think he filed it october twenty eighth two thousand and fourteen and that's the pleading we're on all these four or five occasions by my count requested of hearing an evidentiary hearing to address the issues he laid out included the number of witness statements she didn't give any explanation but she did and i did it give some indication that she considered it and denied it as opposed to the other motions that she struck without even addressing i think is if you look at the two motions w getting materials from his trial counsel your first of that someone on this first motion with her are the states that in the one he filed subsequently he was in prison hamper his ability to get the materials that he needed to lay out in detail what is issues were in it in his initial motion to withdraw but after he was given an opportunity to get the materials we stuck to some witnesses that he thought were  was he was able to supplement that in much more detail when he followed subsequently so even if you did look at that second motion as a motion to reconsider i think given the circumstances one that should have been considered  why what he thought the problems were he claims that normally this trial counsel tell me he has to plead which conceivably i've done in my practice and said the evidence is overwhelming but in combination next to the house question here where she said he wasn't there didn't stand a lot of time there and a stepfather said that as well that sort of evidence differs acted sort of raise a reasonable doubt as to whether in combination with the other wit confessed to the essential facts twice once when he was arrested and given the grand warnings and then secondly a change of plea hearing given those detailed confessions couldn't the judge saying that he never gave that statement would be plausible and accept the jury obviously that's open to question but at least it was some basis to make the claim that he never gave the statement and that absent the statement and in combination with the newly discovered evidence he claims he's received after is that the site wasn't even on existence at the time of question that could have raised a reasonable doubt along with maybe the greatest offense but it was a plausible defense it was not incredible it was totally beyond the powers of imagination that a jury would have had a reasonable doubt as to his guilt if you was allowed to present this evidence of it all prophesied being in existence and these other witnesses that would say he wasn't present i thought the what we're trying to figure out is whether his plea regionally was a product of his own choice so that sense that he's down by a right because he can be twenty to fifty five afterwards if he wants to challenge it on these grounds so i guess what about the motion filed later after memorandum ordered already issued on the first one by the additional information and the argument is that that was an abuse of discretion is our position it's properly viewed as a motion for reconsideration of that standard and abuse of discretion would be the standard both for granting it in for granting hearing i'm not sure entirely agree that there are six clear requests for a hearing but even assuming that there were that the motion for reconsideration did include a clear request and it could have been recently denied and probably  important reason is that there wasn't the kind of there's a suggestion there was a blockbuster information of reconsideration that there actually been that kind of information a third party said submitting an affidavit yes i did it or i was there something somebody directly could comment on the events question that might have raised a question about whether the court really did have to then investigate hear it but that's not what the additional information was if you read through the things that are cited essentially you have the only person who comes close to  contradictory in the facts is the mother and even then only by inference in suggesting primarily that she heard the dogs barking she got up her son just arrived in the police arrived there after the implication being he didn't have time to go inside and get on the time this is the kind of information that is already had it had found insufficient to cast doubt on the specific question about whether he could have committed the crime that had to put in his confession and again at that change plea hearing and i think that the court was very reasonable in doing that especially because as i pointed out several times during these proceedings focusing solely on that date is problematic because that's not the only date on which relevant events occurred continuing to s communications it could easily be forgeries of disregarded that information especially again because it did not directly contradict it but only suggested shari'a francis so based on what the court had motion for reconsideration there just wasn't the kind of information