and you have ten minutes allotted for you so please feel free to go and i will warn you when you're down to about ten minutes so that and if we have questions of course occurred during that time as well and the reason why i believe there's been a problem with the lower courts is the fact that a lot further the court ruled that in order to apply the past you have to first determine whether the two statutes and the lower courts have never taken that opportunity they've always simply stated solicitation is different than attempt so therefore that the question is is answered and i don't believe that and i believe that the court has the opportunity to find or whether it be in double jeopardy question or insufficiency the evidence the fact is that many many cases even in arizona have spoiled this standing offer the two different minors fifty dollars and the court their firm the conviction for solicitation that as well the other cases i've submitted to this court in my motion for prior certification and in the supplemental saying that it's an attempt is not correct i believe it was a solicitation and that they made an error and that and that case because of the fact that that person is going to engage in that conduct with a minor individual proposition to nine year old girls and he offer them each fifty dollars to engage and allow him to tax them where he would be participating respond directly and they were directly participating the problem with arizona's ruling is that they see that you can never solicit to solicit a crime in which you yourself will participate and as this court held  approved the ruling and state vs i mean sullivan versus state in the last mccain where they found that it was mere preparation to offer the minor money to engage in a sexual act and  and the fact is that they could never have to charge me with all felicity and an attempt in both case they could only charge one and you may want to spend a little time on your ineffectiveness for claims do you want to address many of th em i believe that the claims really speak for themselves i believe that my attorney at trial the record clearly shows the very outset that he told the trial judge that you know if they allowed in the prior bad act which even the trial judge in the state agreed before it was allowed in that they were dissimilar and and my appellate counsel didn't argue that but my my trial counsel tejas pretty much said that if they allow prosecutor said not to talk about that so the impressions upon them out of the jury's mind that hey maybe she committed another kind of they're not telling us about and i believe that has a prejudicial impact on the jury's determination proper before there was a the case was made to the jury the defense counsel moved to to have a directed verdict on that count because there was no evidence that a third party was involved about you know i've had some dreams and i don't know what they mean and she testified to it there's absolutely nothing again the defense counsel could have done because one it wasn't hearsay that it made the statements and two it has some sort of mean the cross examination was a reasonable tactical decision objected but had he done so the jury might have thought well gosh you know this is really important but by decimating the letters on cross examination that was a sound tactic of choice begin with then the double jeopardy clause would have prevented him from being recharged again and i believe the state is again wrong concerning that this court's obligation to follow state lab because the court's only