which could have been up to thirty years in prison would he not have faced post person very similar to this for sex offender registration as some yes but that was also the only possibility for him to avoid those consequences and he testified and the state did not seek to controvert that testimony before the post conviction trial court he testified on equivocally that he would have had he known what he knew later gone to trial and what's interesting about the post every everyone says that in these circumstances that is that realistic where he basically ten percent of the sentence he could have gotten i think it is realistic i think we have to accept it is realistic because we cannot change the factual record that was developed in the state had no i the client about the consequences of a guilty plea or another another decision to waive a constitutional right to prejudice is their client and and so the problem is we get trapped in the direct consequence versus collateral consequence morass and i think that frankly is what permits counsel to use the concept of pretty heavy not retroactive against us i think this case is different from the immigration sort of consequences describe i think yes and that we are really foreclosed from relying on by child as because there's a very important legal principle that distinguishes integration consequences and sexes and the consequences as i said before sex offender consequences are automatically consequences of a plea and they're definite they're so forth and what i was just trying to say about sex offender consequences versus for example immigration consequences is that in the immigration context there's some law enforcement discretion is federal executive branch action that has to be taken to for example initiate certain actions and refrain from other actions or he is guilty of a new crime and being being exposed to conviction for a new crime for things of which he was not correctly advised undermines the knowing quality of his plea i want to go back to the prejudice pernik yeah at the time pleading guilty and again i may be misremembering that spend it seems to me what he stated to the court at the time time was these are measure eleven crimes i could spend a ton of time in jail my wonderful lawyer has told me that this is the only way i can spend less a lot of time in prison and that's why i am accepting this and i guess i just have a hard time seeing that he would have of thirty years instead of three it is hard to imagine because the client did not imagine at that time all the aspects that the coming of age had sex offender would entail and i think that to the extent that that sounds so he'd rather spend twenty seven more years in prison than have to register money moves but there's no certainty that he would have received twenty seven years in prison the indictment charged him with for example two different crimes for touching very closely related parts of the may please court counsel gregory as for respondent the oregon board of parole as an initial matter because it relates to both the problems one and two of strickland i'd like to identify the nature of the mis advice or omitted advice that petitioner contended trial counsel was ineffective for failing to give him and on page seventeen and eighteen of the petitioners brief it talks about well first i'd like to say i should start with this that it is undisputed that that there was some discussion about post pr supervision conditions petitioner himself said that there was a discussion about that and it's undisputed that there was some discussion about sex offender registration and even lifetime sex offender registration so what is disputed is whether there was further information regarding registration about the duty to change to notify the state police when changed his residen and so the other they amended advice then starting with the bullet points on page eighteen is dean listed on the national sex offender registry my brief research on that indicates that that began in two thousand and six so we're talking about  two thousand and four plea and we need to look at the law at that time and then not being able to live with or near minors that is one of the standard conditions under the statute being subject to this mcgrath examinations that is one although that i think is per p o so that's not a mandatory one losing patient psycho therapist privilege yes that's necessary because if you're going to sex offender treatment and your treatment providers need to know what what's going on  not being able to have an internet connection so my review of the statute at that time says nothing about an internet connection now may that be a special condition perhaps i could be a special condition but the condition is only focused on not possessing pornographic materials and says nothing about internet connection and this business about the effect on his work is interesting take a closer look at because that flows merely by the fact that he's a convicted offense and i think it would be self evident to the petitioner that that conviction would have adverse consequences for him that has nothing to do with his registry which i don't believe it is disseminate that information is advice and in fact that paragraph goes on to talk about how he's been unable to get a job well i don't think that i think that is beyond the scope of the record that's not in the record that happened after he was released from prison and that i think is not evidence that really need to know what is at stake here and then further if this court does accept the procedural default argument then all of these conditions fall out of the case and really what we're looking at is the conditions of notifying the state police for change of employment address or i have a hard time with you just speaking for myself i have a hard time with your procedural default her unit because it seems to me absolutely and and actually what i'll focus mostly on because it seemed to be like this where the questioning was focused on is the is the prejudice wrong and i think that will be lockhart is actually a very useful template for th here because that is a case in which the court considered that the consequence of parole eligibility in that case that it sure when he pleaded guilty to murder and theft he believed that he would be considered  what he didn't know because his attorney did not inform him was that his prior conviction of a felony actually made it i'm sorry back that he thought he would be eligible at one thirty because he had a prior felony he would not be eligible until one that he had talked to his attorney and was satisfied with his advice and that at the time when he was considering the plea there was no evidence that he was concerned at all about eligibility and that applies here as well there's no evidence at all that petitioner was even thinking about the collateral consequences of his conviction as a sex offender in fact even in post conviction on a question i believe p c r trial from his own a czerny as attorney said well didn't you see the conditions or you have heard of the conditions why didn't you focus on him and he said at the time i thought that was a minor detail i was facing these measure eleven charges and i really wasn't thinking about it so the record is scant or no existence as to petition or proving prejudice under the hill standard which requires you to go back to the time of the pulley and determine whether you would have insisted on going to trial had you not  and the state can sit on their hands and just see what edition or comes up with and in this case it was a good case to sit on your hands because there was a lot of evidence from the criminal trial record that was supportive of it and that was contradictory to petitioner statement that yeah now if i knew what i would have known i would go back and seek a retrial which isn't even the focus it's not what he knows now i mean you can learn a lot of things after the guilty plea i mean you can learn that the l changed and the that witnesses are no longer available and that's why that is not the standard that's why you have to go back because it comes from strict ones requirement that the alleged error has to affect the outcome of the proceeding at the time and as to that we can look at the basically his theme was i'm i think i'm innocent but i'm pleading guilty i'm giving three years of my life over despite the fact that i believe i'm innocent because i don't want to risk spending more than a decade of my life at the age of forty five in prison and i think that's those are sort of the starkest facts that we have and the best evidence that we have of what was going on in petitioner's mind at the time i think his slip about a minor detail was very apt when i think sort of and i think what the post conviction court of the post and conviction court view the case that yes it was a difficult choice but these you weren't thinking about these circumstances at the time because there was bigger fish to fry namely well maybe but isn't that consistent his characterization isn't consistent with what i understand to the argument now which is that what he understood this entail simply reporting once a year on his birthday right and my answer to that would be the sort of the the way that it was disposed of in the p c r court which i read that the courts or the p c r court's order as sane as a factual matter i just don't believe that you were that there was any advice lacking here and the evidence to support that was the attorney's  prison and sex offender registration and the prosecutor's representation that he had given a sheet of paper over what post prison supervision conditions to counsel and the court and then petitioners and petitioners later a all of the things that he said about how he was satisfied with his attorney i mean even later on i think no maybe it was at the time that he said his attorney met with him every week at his attorney was sophisticated enough to actually get a sex offender evaluation as a bargaining chip in the  decided now he would have done yes and i think in time and in that regard you know his sentencing how it really talked about how devastating the measure eleven penalties were and he said he was scared to go to prison and he wasn't willing to give up a decade of his life to go to prison listen put his focus i think we have to look at all of the evidence together both the evidence from the time of his sentencing and the evidence from the post conviction trial and i think we are permitted to argue that there are inferences reasonable inferences that can be drawn from that total universe because we can never rule wind the clock back to the time of the plea we have to use evidence to establish what would have happened you wri