purpose of the twenty two fifty five is reserved for transgressions of constitutional rights and the narrow range of interest that could not have been raised on direct appeal because the court does not intervene it would result in a complete miscarriage of justice i think is what we would have here  court did not a week here because let me ask before you get into the details i sort of a big picture question i'm not really sure what the end game is for your client even if you were to prevail in this twenty two fifty five and it seems to me the real issue he has i know he's upset about the lifetime of supervised release that he wasn't told about the plea here and even that was in the agreement but the reality is even if you get that you win and he gets a do over i think it's highly likely the court would impose that either on another guilty plea or a trial conviction so it seems to me what he's really trying to get out from under and the only thing he really has a realistic chance of getting out from under is this permanent computer ban because there there is some case law that if you got  redo you might be able to effectively challenge that but if that's what this is really all about why don't you just seek modification of that condition because now i understand you might have to wait till he's actually released there's some some issues about that but courts often modify conditions of supervised release the probation officer these are reasonable people they're going to want him to have a job they're not going want to sit at home all day totaling his thumbs which is only a recipe for more trouble so it seems to me there's a very strong likelihood this condition could be modified certainly i think the you know the core one imposed filtering software things like that on any computer he used at work but if that's the real issue it just seems to me that's a much easier way to to get t you know we don't know that and i think it's important points off for accepting responsibility you want to get if you want to try but you're not and i can't dispute it but what i think is important is when you look at even the case that was  side it by the government leave versus united states of apparent was important is not necessarily the outcome per se what's important is that dip the client have the necessary information to make the correct choice when they decided to after being convicted or plead guilty to a felony offense of bombing a child narky his job prospects will be limited so a lot of he may be forced to go back into business for himself your honor and a person who knows  that's just cost point that's the problem here what was the information that had you been told it it's reasonably likely he wouldn't have put what was it's the information about a life time computer being it's not the rear court to an individual at the change oh please here in your honor it is undisputed that my client was given incorrect information by the court as it relates to supervised release and the question becomes a person who's standing in front of a court who's not an attorney has no prior legal experience if they see something that they're that they may help going over a detail or they may have bridges game's over and it conflicts with something that a person not just a person but at the court tells them doing doing the move to withdraw the plea if it mattered so much you know i would point out that at that time he had a trial counsel who don't we don't acknowledge we had never handled a federal criminal matter before your honor and so a lot of it does go back to his ineffective lifetime of super the courts only more likely to impose lifetime supervision when he sees a serious sex offense like this coupled with the failure to accept responsibility and again you think there's what lever says united states speak to again we've got to be very selective about who we pick in jury to get one person in there who may you know view the government's case differently sometimes adults for help point i mean i these cases no one i want there rarely if ever i had a child in case going to trial when i was a district court judge i was when i was worried about jury selection finding suitable jurors i asked a dozen of my colleagues in the houston federal court some of whom had been there for decades i said i need some help on juries how many jurors i should bring in who's had a jury trial in a in a child pornography case all the only one of the twelve that ever tried one of these are people who've been on the court for decades i mean that's the reality to these cases even more than most don't go to hearing he heard from the defendant and the counsel and at that point after that does he say no stricklin violation but he denied the client was important to i would think point out yonder is that the trial court who heard this information was also the trial court they gave my client the incorrect information at the change of  about not properly informing mr crane up the maximum period of supervised release that's the key is the period it's not a computer you someone doing as the conduct that he did would expect a computer internet r he knew and had reared and presumably understood the possibility of a lifetime ban it was only afterwards if the judge this go to trial claiming it's b care it's one of these be careful what you wish for situations i mean my understanding is there were talk of more charges if you went to trial beyond the fifteen year maximum i just think defend is going to situate they seem to think there's a third right there's a plea option there's a trial option a lot of times defendants think there's some third option but the really is and it's trial or play those are the two options even if he wins and i just i don't see and i think that the case law even we still says we have to look at are there are reasons why trial would be would have been a preferred option had he known all the information i agree we have to look at that but i'm still just i just don't see what benefits trial offered whereas if it had some significant downside of a greater sentence that would lead us to conclude if he had perfect representation he would have gone to trial and again i think you know points out is kind of hard to you know assume what would ha matters not necessarily that it is up to say the case i was coming from supreme court that's what matters not necessarily the outcome would you agree that all the consequences that you say he might have misunderstood were correctly were stated in the plea agreement supervised release which is what was stated incorrectly by the judge rule have been does not however require the judge to warn a defendant who's pleading about the potential conditions of supervise release he or she might face doesn't that reform reflect the view that those factors really are secondary to the plea considerations and and that would influence our look at the prejudice what their case does it point out that in time as a particularly severe p m t that may flow from a plane the in the individual should be apprised of that in deciding whether or not to proceed with the first time having handle a federal criminal case all of his crime with spears have been limited to state court already don't do a whole lot of child pornography cases and so what mr mitchel state was that he had some discussions with the probation office as well as the government you six sixty one if that's all true and i see where you're going is that a sort of a no prejudiced second prong prick with stricklin analysis it's actually goes to both and it goes to the first point in that it's not the obligation of the lawyer to consider every possible permutations that's where judge wingate sort of stopped right he ruled that way didn't really say and also i find that he wouldn't have changed his plea well and open to debate lifetime computer bands that our court is criticized as it would be sort of the direction of questions to opposing counsel which is this record just just does not show that the information that arguably wasn't given to him would have changed his decision to about you can't ever have a gun after a felony or you can't vote are those direct also those some of those are direct consequence of a felony you obviously know but then so you've you think the law says that a it before consequence we're talking about here and in the middle it gets effect there isn't discussed often is is in essence what it's cost to mention you can they can be changed in the future they can be modified right the technology can change experience so i would understand why you'd want to get educated about the sentencing guidelines but it really troubled me i'm curious if this is just common in your district he went to the probation officer in the first one in the district i'm aware of a probation officer wouldn't even be assigned to do the p s r until the conviction happens but he goes the probation officer in the probation officer basically says my guess is the guidelines are going to be about seven years the reason that troubles me it turns out is here that the p s r it was about double that i mean that just seems to me a recipe for favor a lawyer advising incline about the potential collateral consequences of a guilty plea further what delia does is it kind of changes from from just being about the rate to collateral consequences especially when there's a particular severe consequence