her guilty plea in both juvenile court with an attached adults and hence a sixteen year old who had counsel that was suffering from a conflict of interest and she was also one of active even more importantly this is a guilty plea no one really anticipated that she would be required to serve the adult portion of the sentence and in fact she almost didn't her probation was revoked three months before she reached the five year term of first sentence and at this point kayl yes she has been in to go to sea for i believe it's approximately two here seana first caleb would tell him to fully negotiate a guilty plea there were four counts three of those are for aggravated battery and the fourth include the mandatory add on and therefore they vacated the fully negotiated guilty plea finding that that was the only remedy because the judgment was void here at the same facts apply kayla's senates to a class felony for one hundred eighty days when the minimum should have been two nearest the trial court did not have the authority to enter that and therefore the sentence is void now the almost supreme court recently came out with a case called people that's acceptable but that doesn't work here for several reasons first the defendant and donaldson received senates is that worth within the statutory range and in order to correct the mistake the trial court entered in other words to correct the  charge meant all the supreme court had to do was lower the center of each conviction so the defendant wasn't serving any more time on either the conviction or in total number of years and the sentence was were never void here the only way to fix void judgment is to either increase the number of years in the aggravated battery conviction something that haleigh obviously has not agreed to or to vacate the guilty plea and allow the state inhaler to work this out and the trial court i would also like to point out your honors that while that aggravated battery from a scene in consequential in light of the involuntary manslaughter charge these aggravated battery more important to kayla the first time really have a chance to hear from her as in her post conviction petition because of course this is from a guilty plea and so she introspect guilty plea without really any comment when the post conviction petition she she's very troubled by these activated battery convictions and that she feels like she has a defense to things that she shouldn't like guilty and again we have to remember that when she entered this guilty plea she was only sixteen years old and as  for all criminal cases instead it's only point when perhaps the parents are not there so the role of the parent and the guardian ad litem are somewhat symbiotic they say they have the same potential conflict here counsel represented both the parents and often have a very vested interest in the way juvenile determinations are made specifically in this case and again we don't have all of the details because it's a first stage petition so if she's merely  alleging the facts that she knows them best in this case alone we know that the parents are actually paying for defense counsel the parents are paying for that that really doesn't matter if you if you look at the facts of the last of them because i representation was because again this is only the record before the trial court and as often happens and collateral attacks additional records are needed to fully determine what happened and so if this is sit back down they have an opportunity when she's appoint d counsel to more fully develop that record but one can see how parents and children may often have an inherent conflict when they are both being represented by the same attorney finances first of all me  make sure their child doesn't repeat their mistakes while the child is simply interested in a well and we know from the post conviction petition that it was the parent who had most of the conversations with counsel it was the parent who pay for counsel and that the parent was involved in the plea negotiations and again this is a first stage petition so that record has been to fully developed out but if it was sent back for a second stage then certainly that would that would be then in those instances that would be acceptable here in his very first entry of a parent's he goes on the record and says i'm representing haleigh and the rest of her family and then in the guilty plea hearing that's once again brought to the attention because he's talking about his discussions about the guilty plea and then he goes on to talk about not his discussions with payless so much as his discussions with the parents and whether they understood the school typically and you put those two together along with the information that we have in the post conviction petition and it seems that defense counsel is acting both in the pale and in the interest of her parents certainly enough at a first stage post conviction ceiling to race the just a claim so finances alon constitutional claim and hear her conversations about her relationship with counsel of the inclusion of her mother's letter discussing her conversations with counsel along with the record on direct appeal is sufficient to raise  she knew that that's what the letter indicated or not she is warning that to the fact the council isn't a factor and then she's explaining all the different conversations that she had with council and this would have given rise to a conflict of interest now kayla's doesn't have to know the word conflict of interest she merely has to know that there's a problem and put forth facts in the petition to give rise to that claim and here at the first stage petition without benefit of counsel she pled sufficient facts that would indicate that there was some sort of conflict going on here that council had a dual representation a hybrid representation if you will that he was both serving the interests of her parents and kayla i mean if this court has no legal principle saves the invalid portion of the it's not an essential part of the deal it does not void the entire deal and i think in this particular case the hundred eighty days was simply there's no indication that the defendant would not have pled guilty if the that was the only thing on the table i think that given the fact that she got the five year probation that she just about there expect the courts to apply the legal analysis to say ok can song the eagle theory be needed that would apply to the stacks that might possibly give them that and it doesn't take much to say that just saying weak does not raise a conflict of interest there is no conflict of interest just because the attorneys hired by the parents are just because the or for appointment of cas because the defended simply did not raise the issue she may not need to know the term of art of conflict of interest but she has to do more than just throw throw out a bunch of facts and expect the court to parse through that language and parse through the record to say ok she didn't say this but maybe there is a theory there that there's that there might be a problem i think that that is not what is expected plea different theory just because the facts dealing with stop are also included in the titian you're limited to what the defense says and said nothing but comfort defenses so there's nothing discharged until the entire sentence is discharged here she's still in the o c and she will be for some time and so until her total convictions from this for until all of the charges from this particular conviction are discharged none of guilty plea to the status argue that these three aggravated batteries are not essential to the total conviction and again the state has it cited in a particular case that would say pleading guilty to three class three felonies are not essential parts of the plea agreement and further if these are still not essential to the plea agreement then why were they included she pled guilty to four counts and now we're saying that three of those counts are non essential of course they were essential and it's hard for any of us at this point to go back in time and to determine what was being given up on behalf of the state and why caleb was giving up and that's why when you enter a fully negotiated guilty plea often the only remedy  plea because both the defendant and the state entered these negotiations and formed a contract here that contract was for three convictions of aggravated battery and one conviction for the involuntary manslaughter and we don't know at that point since th had her agreeing to twelve years she still put guilty to those three so obviously those three convictions at least on some level were important to the state important enough that it was included in the plea agreement and it's difficult for us to go  they would be discharged but at this point she still main charge with three aggravated batteries and until the full sentence is discharged each individual piece is not to stars another words if we were to vacate this and send it back down those three aggravated batteries are no more finish than the involuntary manslaughter unless we go back through and more time for credits or for these three convictions but we can't do that your honor because it's a fully negotiat arguments nor even understand what legal arguments that she's raising she simply has to present those facts in the petition and certainly we would offer her a record where she laid out every fact that gives rise to this conflict of interest and she's not arguing that every time the counsel is paid for by a parent that there is necessarily a person a conflict of interest but what she is alleging is that every time council represents both the parents and the child then that is a person a conflict regardless of the financial motives and all and because this is a first stage proceeding it should be remanded so that she can more fully develop the record on the conflicts that existed in this case between her parents and herself when she was