in this case mr johnson did the best he could to bring these issues to trial court's attention during his motion to reconsider so this court doesn't have to answer the question of whether you have hired coun responses as an analogy you do not have the right to know of the collateral consequences of a guilty plea but if your trial counsel tells you what those collateral consequences will be wrote which is confusing to me is that you don't have the right resources of the stage one and when we get to stage two counsel has known duty to amend the petition that he file which petition and sells tells council could you look at my record and tell me if i have any issues like rights which is likely what happened in roe could considering it was a fitness problem and this individual had to know that undoubtedly no familiarity with the law according to the trap or in the state's question is these issues are all known at the time he filed the initial station it should have been race there then they weren't and therefore can't show cause he shouldn't get any advantage because he had hired counsel over of pro se petition works if this is similar to a crank call situation where after a trial a criminal defense is i received ineffective assistance of counsel and here's why the difference here is i don't believe there is necessarily the need for any kind of judicial inquiry into the charge if you have to have a separate area i think what the trial court can do because in the post conviction issue stage one a trial court looks at the petition he makes a judgment whether defendant would not have been better off pro se the if the defendants allegations are true that he informed counsel of these other issues that he wanted to raise that's clearly a factor xterm to the fence that he would defendant would state hypothetically inform counsel these are the issues i wanted to race he failed to do it clearly i was prejudiced by this by counsel's performance and now these issues are way something to that effect outside of the record i'm saying that would be the proper way to add additional issues to this petition or raise additional issues involving a post conviction proceeding in a way people  assume definitive position here the defend it was lucky enough to retain counsel to draft his initial petition is also guaranteed the right to reasonable post conviction counsel before anybody who drafts or petition pro se the the post election hearing act doesn't even appoint counsel until the second stage when the state can file a motion to dismiss here on the first we can't sidestep those procedural hurdles by going trying to wedge our bunch of additional issues into motions to reconsider that's just not the way the post conviction hearing act works so that's the first way the here is what i make sure i understand you're suggesting he does have the right to reasonable assistance if the word if he hires an attorney but that reasonable assistance out that reasonable system is not guaranteed at the first stage for retained counsel because pro se defendants don't get reasonable assistance at first stage that's the second way the trial court could dismiss this this petition garcia rocha is again sound and consistent with these special tori language of posting pictures hearing act that being house is not even appointed till the second stage there for those those people who retained private counsel to admit a draft or initial petition clearly are not guaranteed reasonable assistance of post conviction counseling session every language says that that does not attach until the second stage people versus kotto did point out that the supreme court in the past had guaranteed reasonable assistance of post conviction counsel at the first stage however they pick the only case they  mitchell which was a death penalty case of course there are specific benefits in the post conviction hearing act for those defendants that are sentenced to death one of those is that counsel is appointed at the first stage so it makes sense in  we can't give more leeway to those people that are lucky enough to retain counsel at the first stage and get their post conviction deficient draft drafted by an actual lawyer people versus shells from supreme court case made it clear that if any leeway is to be granted in post invasion proceedings it should be for those defendants who are so that's the second reason we have a waiver because they were improperly raised in a motion to reconsider the only issue the only issue in argument here on appeal was one of those rights in the motion to reconsider those away even if it wasn't waived defendant is not guaranteed reasonable assistance at the first stage for c m pursuant to the third district sound logic in garcia rocha however even assuming that defense counsel should have a bridge or a defendant was guaranteed reasonable assistance postcondition counsel here the it the underlying issue is meritless the underlying issue was the ineffective assistance of trial counsel for failing to object to officer handles testimony concerning the whereabouts of certain other third parties that may have wanted to kill the victim or being a criminal a police informant as this court stated fields one sound trial strategy is to ignore the testimony of police officers to avoid unduly emphasizing it to the jury that is that place here what we had here was  hypothetical that these third parties also new this morning were criminal or police informants therefore they could have been the shooters however that really wasn't fleshed out by any direct witness testimony on the other hand two people testified and her two people only stated at some point in the record that definitive they soften shoot the victim so clearly to the well for to not dwell on this third party argument which would presumably result in the state either having to prove it up or call another witness or something like that or not well and that was completely sound trial strategy even easier is the second prong strickland defendant was not d the person knows this was not a matlock episode where somebody was going to get a call and confess confess to the shooting the defendant did so clearly the evidence against finn it was overwhelming even assuming the counsel objected in those objections were sustained to the hearsay testimony the outcome of the proceedings would not have been different beyond a reasonable doubt so both concepts failed trial counsel was an ineffective therefore clearly oppos vision council was unreasonable in failing to raise this marital situation so there's that those are the three reasons it's waiver because it was that these issues were improperly raised and motions to reconsider to even if they weren't waive that's any any defendant the lucky enough to retain counsel gets to sit skip the first stage of his conviction proceedings that's completely unfair to the majority of defendants who have to file their first petition pro se and also it's hard to fathom how it's a gift to the first or to the second stage when the state would still not be able to participate or violent motion to dismiss until it's actually at the second stage so the sense  all i would i would argue that the same is wrong and it's it's contradictory to the plain language of the act statute i mean there's a specific procedure laid out in the post conviction act the garcia r if this court doesn't have any question my question is what maybe i misunderstood that i give distinguishing in two thousand and nine people versus cable with decided in the second district and it held no right that first day both iraq appears to have the same decision though it's two to one is that correct