no defenses available at the time of his guilty plea in fact there was an x for it by dr chapman specifically found that mr bush was insane on the morning of the and now in its most basic level this appeal can be decided based on report directly relevant to the petition claims is unreasonable first in this case those minimum requirements did not happen and the record affirmatively shows that there is a rule six fifty one c violation compliance with rule six fifty one some questionable witness that maybe could have been found we're talking about an expert opinion going to regulate the heart of the petitioners claim and the failure to use a report like that that's not some mere formality you know that's the heart of what this advocate was meant to me it's hard to imagine and better evidence that an expert opinion that insanity defense is available it directly contradicts the council's assertion at the hearing that there was no viable defense available for mr bush and it indicates that there may have been an expert who is willing to testify in support of an insane defense on this trip bush's behalf yet despite its critical importance and the obvious relevance of this report it was never used by post conviction counsel never so it wasn't attached to the post case the failure to use this report and to mention that is worse than what happened in couple burt and club over the attorney attempted to argue the contents of the report the bill to attack she felt it has transcripts he did it time to argue the content here the attorney made no attempt to mention the contents of the report this book goes beyond the failure to adequately support mr bush's claims and it becomes and it creates the possibility for a misapprehension about what the report actually sat for example all the state's motion for making his decision and now the state rightly point out that in context this quote seems to refer only to the fitness issue however the hearing or when dismissing the petition and more generally states that counsel did what he could considering got all the reports he was supposed to get this indicates that he'd be hearing or may have been confused as to whether or not defense reports could support either the fitness issue or the insanity a show but of course the chamar court could have supported that post conviction counsel has a duty help shape and present his petitioners claim a reasonable advocate would have cleared up any possible between the evidence of fitness and the evidence of the insanity defense which was much stronger a reasonable advocate would have presented the expert finding on insanity at the hearing to the court that was making the decision a reasonable advocate would have impeached plead counsel with a report when counsel made the assertion that n c l b was not a viable bands and some re why advocate would have used this report now the state argues that there is no rule sixty one violation because the ineffectiveness claim is patently without merit this argument which attempts top go to the merits of the underlying claim report establishes a rule six fifty one c violation there can be no harmless error appeal here post conviction counsel never use an expert court which directly supported mr bush's claim of constitutional heir and this failure shows appeal even then in fact this motion for leave to file a supplemental brief says that he's precluded from raising his current claim in the reply brief on the plane relating to the chapman report is for that reason the present claim is forfeited under rule three forty one alternatively this court chooses to consider the claim council only had a duty to amend the petition where that amendment could make a claim successful and hear the defendant's claim that  was unaware of the insanity of the possible delivery of asserting an insanity defense and that he would not have pled guilty had he known that this is is explicitly contradicted by the merits sorry by the record so this claim would have been meritless even if the chapman report would have been attached to the record in the trial court shows that after chapman filed his two thousand and four report the trial judge spoke extensively with the defendant personally on december twenty first two thousand and four at a hearing this was about seven months before its july twenty thousand and five plea so this concert and in that hearing the trial court talked to the defendant about the possibility of the searching the insanity defense and the pros and cons of doing so and he said that  that and he told the defendant that the defendant would have an opportunity to consult with counsel about that the next day so this contradicts the claim in the reply brief at page three that the defendant did not know the possibility of inserting the insanity defense subsequent real slim that an insanity defense was really hard to prove and he did not think he did not advise it so the defendant testified that on the advice of his brother he pled guilty after weighing his chances at trial which would have involved a pro convincing evidence that he lacked this mission to a mental state against the plea offer the defendant testified to at the post conviction hearing that he didn't want to spend the rest of his life in an insane asylum and that a staff member at the test for mental health also recommended pleading guilty so the judge found that the defendant pled guilty after rationally weighing the risk of going to trial and rolling the dice on the insanity defense with the benefits of accepting the plea offer and he had and by the way plea counsel testified that he filed the affirmative defense of insanity because quote i thought it was not viable but it was about the only defense i could think of and the defen the insanity defense was possible to assert it was whether i defended accurately stated in his petition that he didn't know that fact but he explicitly contradicted that back at his testimony at the hearing when he testified that he spoke about because the court said that there was no proof that the fire was an accident and then the reviewing work stated that appellant had stated that post conviction counsel had a duty to and have attached proof to the petition that the fire was an accident in other words the fact upon which the petition turned was whether there was any proof that the fire was an accident but in this case there's no question about whether the whether the defendant possibly could have asserted the defense of insanity that was understood and accepted by everyone at that hearing the question that just wasn't the relevant question here it's not as though in this case the defendant's claim was denied i don't think that's enough there are allegations about fitness about insanity and about whether or not the different was partly admonished to at least look at the first appearance which was ordered by the trial court and he never said that he read that he had read that he probably would have looked a little harder ability to use their court so our argument is not be solely on their work i think that's the best evidence but we brought this up in our opening brief this is just further evidence that there is a failure to comply and that's a and it's also important that we were not able to rely on that report in the same way until it was made a part of the appellate record and we brought that out blasted a stipulation from the state we didn't think this was something we could supplement because the report stated i guess the exam was august third the file date was august eleventh there's no filed stamp on the report we got from counsel not from the circuit court so we attempted to get a stipulation we view their motion to supplement as that stipulation but of course it came after we've already filed our opening brief and even beyond all of that the state in their response for live on the relies on their part and characterizes that so we of course have the ability to provide their arguments back and they point to the state they point to the motion to dismiss all low where the now many of the other arguments of the see go to this idea that you can look at the merits and say there was no need to amend here because it's going to back to this claim is without merit they rely on johnson and greer for this proposition that only successful  but by the conviction that where post conviction counsel does not adequately complete the mandated by the role the limited right to counsel conferred by the act cannot be fully realized we don't know what counsel said to the defendant after he filed  don't know if he changed his mind we don't know what the hearing court would have done if we didn't have the report presented in the right light by an advocate and this court is not required to try to make those determinations instead the court only needs to look at was rule six fifty one