aright and counsel for the accolade could you please state your name to five years and two years consecutively so a seven year aggregate term the same file the petition to revoke based on those unrelated offenses mr donohue admitted to the petition and truck court and three years consecutive to the seven year sense he was serving at the time any prison sentences had mr lang go serve that point he was serving two consecutive sent at the time the admission you know how many other prison sentences head he trial court to admonish a probation or two consecutive sentences but again i would return to this idea that the due process underlies all of this it's more than just a list of things single standard probation didn't tell the defendant that if probation was to be revoked in those cases there is a possibility that he could be doubled up on on the maximum term to which he was a today and here you know the trucker knew that mr lingo was was serving at least one prison sentence at the time and accepted the admission and we know that because the trial court recognized right out of the gate at the admission hearing mr lingo was in custody and then to give you notice this kind of strip in management is strict reading of the possible prison sentence for would have known any prison sentence and post in this case could question out beyond the seven year term that he was serving there there is this again there's kind of this like common sense position that mr lang or anybody in his position who's already serving a seven year prison sentence and then is told you know the most you can get is five years you know this conclusion one would draw is what hey i can't do any worse than than ours have by admitting titian and then the court says yeah you're going to serve not five or three years but it's going to be consecutive to rely completely on cases that re that analyzed up qually guilty they don't involve violation of probation and recent thing based on that were you able to locate any here let's assume that you were able to convince us that it was a or for the trial court to not admonish regarding consecutive sentences how do how does mr lingo a step which he was prejudiced in is the claim prejudice here how would it have been different how is he arguing on appeal it would have been different on this record we don't know and the reason we don't know i and so we don't we don't we just don't know on this record what to add to the conditions for consecutive sentences prior to accepting his admission to the petition to revoke it ha yes the supreme court stated that among other things due process required that the court mohnish the fit of the sentencing range for the underlying subsequently the supreme court ruled the supreme court drafted supreme court ruled four hundred and two a which requires admonishment regarding the sentencing range for the underlying sense for which the defendant is on probation about consecutive sentences even though it included the consecutive sentences language general four to eight for a two and decided people visit versus gazelle in one thousand nine hundred and five which is directly on point to the fact that this case in justice nichols in this concurrence directly specifically addressed whether due process requires a truck quick to admonish or probation or of the possibility of consecutive sentences prior to the probationary  immaterial to the outcome of the case the outcome would not have changed because defendant had no defense to the petition to revoke probation if it had already been convicted and sentenced on the other cases the state recommended a five year consecutive sentence in descent the supreme court then provides fluoro to ebay and they do so after all is out there why doesn't that seem to buttress mr mclean's argument that obviously they had to have taken the case we take a look at hall which of course it also addresses the issues we're dealing with today the supreme court talks about a case in in that case called peer and they talk about the fact that in peer following pierre that there was some notion that they had brought in what was required as far as it modest meant that a probation violation and they went on to say in hall that they were merely expressing the view that due process required that a defendant's admission must be voluntarily made and then they also went on to say and paul was talking about here in this application we so where does that when you talk about that suspect that they reviewed the language the broad language and in fear in the beer case in the beer case that said that in the beer case the supreme court concluded that due process admissions so i don't see how that's not a clear statement from the supreme court that due process is not necessarily implicated