switched out for conflict or any other reason and counsel as he continued the case multiple times kept promising that he was going to amend the petition that he was gathering more documents in order to my mentor petition and he never did so at the end of the thirteen years mr to recognise that counsel has been ineffective and has failed to amend his petition is is is under reasonable the state argues that the th amendment is retroactive that it should go since the time he was arrested he was required to be making demands so two years before the statute changes requiring him to make a demand the state argues that he should have been making a is to look and see if the statute includes an effective doing here it does generate st so it's going forward that mr jones was required to make to make that demand not into the past and secondly delay or proceeding to trial and people very much where this case this court decided that unless the motion causes delay it shouldn't count against the defendant because it shouldn't be used as an excuse for the state to continually and the filing of that does give rise to rebuttal because often that he did provide reasonable assistance and then becomes the defendant's burden to difficult for a defendant to prove that he received unreasonable assistance then to prove that he received ineffectiveness they're not the same and that's because we are the defendant comes into position its side discuss now certainly the st thing that struck me about this case and i think probably struck this panel too is this question of twelve years passage of time fiction counsel also filed a petition said it adequately shaped the defendant's arguments in made statements at the hearing that indicated he didn't even understand what stage proceedings they were at so felt he and the defendant together together in open court said that they didn't that the defendant did not want to amend it but we don't know and we do know that he got medical records we do know that that on talk with you rather you know what else if there were things happening now the big happened as i say i can't stand in front of this court you can dominate a twelve almost thirteen year delay but don't think we can presume that defense counsel did refuse me post conviction counsel did nothing for that his ultimate decision defendant's ultimate can decision in open court to stand to waive a conflict of interest and had mood counsel appointed for him and we counsel chose to ask the court to allow the rehearing of all pretrial motions and that motion that motion was grante was which is how do you condone the good delay i point out that there is nothing in the end there is nothing in the rule about a time requirement i think that this is something that certainly the of counsel requires purchase reasonable sifts assistance of counsel is more difficult to prove more difficult to prove and strickland and i've cited a case for that proposition in our in thank you very much  stage remedies make me more efficient in this case then rebuttable presumption mr jones has met this simply by showing that counsel was took too long to coach in years to make any amendments and then fail to make any amendments even though some state distinguishes lions and kelly by saying in those cases there was the passage of time and something else well here there was the passage of time and something else the failure to amend so the passage of time for thirteen years is that reasonable the record and here we argue we've shown that he was not reasonable because he again fails to make amendments about what basic amendments alleging prejudice when you have an appellate ineffectiveness claim failing to attach s and to note if i say in my beginning argument stated that the standard is ineffective assistance i misspoke in the briefing and we argue consistently it's unreasonable assistance we have no quarrel with that but we're saying in this case which goes again i guess if you graft a prejudice argument to understand the less distance of county which suddenly have prejudice mr jones another aspect of prejudice in waiting backlog is the passage of time certainly affects the number of witnesses that may have to come