client believes that it was mr cohen says he had to revise it because he concluded that consent was not going to make it there's not going to see the light of day and therefore that allegation have absolute no chance of getting anything let me get this right they're saying that if a pro sake defendant makes an allegation that is outside the bounds of the law and post condition council wants to amend let me let me let me ask you this i think bottom line question when the supreme court says you know and they have they found counsel's assistance to be unreasonable in particular when they when they when counsel fails to overcome  the p c can be fleshed out in it and it's going to be a stronger p c and eventually this defendant me be entitled to relief but if the defendant is not entitle because all those go to the merits of the allegation and an affidavit itself the need for a a form as opposed to a verification doesn't seem to add anything to the p stature statutory and that was a holding in rossi and that's what we're going to do we're not going to we're not granted any kind of relief if we're to a poll we would simply send it back for further proceedings on the postcondition stand here and say you know do the second stage over well at that well that would afford to find another bite at the apple which he's not entitled to but in the end if it's frivolous where's the harm well there might not be any harm but but the point is that reading the statute on its own terms alter force is constitutional belief and as i say this was the holding and rossi and cope with the court found that a defendant who raises a purely procedural or non constitutional issue is not entitled to make of the confusion expressed by counsel verbal e orally and in writing regarding what stage the post conviction proceedings was that it makes absolutely no difference your honor but it doesn't make a difference in terms of whether or not  and i would also point out to the court that in mendoza there was also a mistake in the court said it's of no moment because that was at the trial court's basis for his opinion and that holds true in this case too even though defense counsel cited the wrong standard been overturned they held what i'm suggesting that it's not a good nice simple claim even if it is cognize a poll defendant has still to show that counsel provided a reasonable assistance as counsel said this morning we don't look at the merits this is not a strickland type analysis this is a much lower standard that strickland is strict but we could argue precious this is a much lower standard you're only looking at three things did the attorney consult with the defendant he said he did in his certificate and the defendant never disputed that did you review the record he said he didn't certificate defendant never disputed sion he'd be here arguing now that he should have he didn't present an adequate claim because it's hard to talk about the merits but he would have been saying it wasn't adequate counsel made a tactical choice defendant disagrees with it but it doesn't mean that it a reasonable if this was strickland you'd say well you can't you're prejudiced this is a much lower standard we obviously reviewed the record i was there some stopping this deal yes nothing is obvious to me is the counsel who assisted him in amending the post conviction petition was unreasonable understand what their standard to review made the circuit court never ruled on that question well don't think it was did he provide a reasonable lower level of assistance yes experience counsel to it and again the last thing i would say i compared the case to miers where defense counsel didn't file six