going my name is a brick stuart i represent mr johnson and what i'd like to do this morning for a few moments is just discuss the overall package that we're dealing with in this case m johnson has written i don't know how many pages of various pleadings in various stages that have gone through various courts the part of the problem with the entire package that he's done much of it is redundant and two separate public defenders and one mr hoffman was the one that actually did the plea in the sentencing and then the public defender's office also handled his direct appeal because that's the way it was back in ninety two now you only get a direct appeal from a trial and i should point out the trial situation is that when i'm through trying a case and my clients found guilty i feel it through division two or the supreme court and then automatically i'm replaced and a new attorney write both the appellate brief and the rule thirty two if it's needed so there's a different cross checking then it was done at that point in time but let me say this though in all fairness and i know you know mr johnson's real problem when you get right down to to these two charges with eight months old or eight months pregnancy going on it with that thirteen year old is beyond me but the key to it was what was done after that point in time nothing was done as far as the sentencing is concerned and i take the position that his issue number seven is an issue that should in fact have been dealt with it should have been dealt with at the very beginning of his entire procedures as far as doing his appellate and rule thirty two i realize the court of appeals argued that well yes he did do something he did mention the fact that he he had a history of alcoholism a history of mental illness and a history of abuse and what have you but i don't know if the court had the opportunity  mr hoffman counsel for the defendant made this statement to judge alfred what i'm saying your honor is that the idea of having sexual relations with a thirteen fourteen year old stepdaughter is not as far outside the and almost the implication that that type of relationship in carnival people is ok and for that reason and the entire sentencing when you look at that package of documents he talks on i think for about five pages simply he could have backed him and attacked the statement after the plea was done by offering a number of things he could have offered testimony from the officers he could have had judge alford listen to the actual tape whereby there could have been a situation of what had become apparent that maybe many of the things that he was saying in that narrative statement that he gave to the police on they were incorrect not true or at least  to question that could have at least mitigated down to some degree some of the horrible statements he made in there which include the alleged use of sexual conduct with his wife in the thirteen year old girl and a whole series of very very damaging statements the prob though in assessing the prejudice prong under strickland is even assuming you meet the first prong on that one you know we've got the confession and in which he essentially at that stage would come into play because obviously he's already pled guilty but what i'm saying is he could have its sentencing by means of a mitigation hearing attacks some of the validity of the statement the other thing that was very troubling to me about the way th of the defendant i don't understand that i've never seen that done before number two the probation officer in the pre sentence report made it abundantly clear what she was going to be talking to a judge alford about defendant's offer after just forest plea agreement and on direct appeal when her wanted to raise an ineffective assistance of counsel claim in his post conviction and proceedings the attorney from the public defender's office noticed that it was going to be a conflict of interest to be removed for that reason and the court appointed a private attorney the private attorney did raise in effect the substance of counsel claims in the post convict received and he hasn't established that any further mitigating evidence would have resulted in a lesser sentence because he has not met has not shown this he has not met the prejudice pronk under strickland and  counsel out of this breaks a little bit when she talks about what the court of appeals addressed it is true that he had been appointed another attorney for a rule thirty two however by that time  e defendant there mr johnson had been writing all of his own pleadings and the rule thirty two attorney really offered little to put forth at that point in time and also the court of appeals had already taken the problem with that's here is that the pre sentence report is prepared by the probation department and they really you know they're horribly overworked and they are basically going to report the facts in a simple way as they can and what they do on this kind of a case they would simply take the police reports that they would get and they would put the information from the reports in the probation pre sentence report so if you take that is the only basis it  doesn't offer the judge any real opportunities to do anything in this case there is a number of things that i think could have been done and then the question comes in would it made a difference and that's the tough issue because we don't know there was no hearing and the only real simple way i suppose that i can argue that it's to say if there was a hearing then we would be in a position to present that type of testimony and i think the problem you run up to now of course is that in the absence of situation is much lower than others that's true but you could have presented testimony to the judge on those particular facts and the reason i mention those is because i also try what we call sexually violent person cases which i'm sure his age at the time of release and the fact that he had been clearly under supervision that wasn't done and that's what he would be requesting and that's the really he's aster thank you very much i think both counsel for your candor and your judgment