the posture would be someone from what was said saying well maybe counsel didn't know not a position you can maintain mr frazier so what's the story why didn't you stand ready expressed concerns concerning his present representation i formed him i had to medical procedures that had to be done within the next two weeks as well as my trial schedule and that if you wanted to retain it then he needed to retain me immediately otherwise i would not started let me tell you know my and indicated that he wanted me to be ready and represented by told him as stated in the record there was no way i could be prepared and adequately represent him a trial if you wanted to continue which he needed to ask the court for that some flexibility of trial court on a given fashionable scenario which makes exceptions to those rules in effect and being of your honor the new counsel was not present able and willing to go that day and the court and the court denied his counsel for the defendant you know for additional information regarding the motion of mr harmon who argued the motion for a continuance which i may say half heartedly made the motion to say he stated that evidence which the court relied upon that he did contact the state's attorney upon his contact by the defendant which i did also and back contact it does occur as a record bears out mr harper mr sharp at that point informing him of the on easiness  client and the possibility of taking over i reached out to the state's attorney to see what she thought the judge's position would be in continuing the matter to allow you counsel to get involved because of my file schedule medical procedures that were necessary so it wasn't some random mythical attorney that nobody had heard of before which the defendant was using in order to try to gain advantage with court and there was no prior continuances in this case either this was the first time this was set for trial off and in this case was a little over four months was a pretty similar timeframe also this case was not in your two wall which is some times the issue in trials or had this was relatively new case also so there are extreme amount of similarities with this th done here just the one through the litany of i want you to understand or you have to but she never asked them specifically whether they did understand that she's asked if they agreed which means except i can see that but she didn't  general statement of the law and then a general question as to whether it's ok with everybody and that's basically what happened here all seem sometimes of the  those factual issues briefly your honor our mr christakis late at night weather conditions were bad there was no field sobriety test there's no breath test there was no evidence in the record course balance was unsteady when he was but when he got out of the vehicle there is a standard testimony by the officer which is typical in my experience of you why cases slurred speech bloodshot eyes and that sort of thing as well as some bad driving the bad right in his shoes were not contained in his police report those were first testified to a trial so that's the scenario this case is there's no videotape there's no breath test and there's no field sobriety test that self i believe makes a closely balanced and certainly a trial  guarantee you if that videotape did not sure what the officer testified to you you would have seen it is what she indicated and there are some others things she said closing argument to that were certainly objectionable which were not but that's the other  pulled then and the evidence sculler certainly could have been argued that he was waiting to find a good safe place to pull over and the weather was bad before he stopped and the police officer of course mr turner testified so we don't know why he didn't stop it certainly there are ways to explain what the the last thing i would ask were before closing would be there we did file a request for bond pending appeal which was denied mr curry's out there i believe is presently august of two thousand and fourteen if he receives identify of new counsel to enter into the case at the time that the case was set for trial during the jury the june term in schuyler county by not being able to appear and represents the required being and does not require that for the defendants identify counts to actually be there but but if there is a lack of inquiry then the absence of the record means that it very well could have been that that identified so it was a situation where mr pritchard preconditions on him just being retained and then this would be a first situation where a court's had reversed after there had been an inquiry below as to same wishful from being and two to try to apply thinking into these facts would necessitate overwhelming costs and also when after the trial when mr frazier became the attorney and he complained about the refusal  the case simply refer to the back of any sort of like video of cooperation and the claims of impeachment from the admissions some reports for example that the police officer said had written so those facts by improper and argue it whereas the other side of that story the record shows referred only to the expired registration charge with the defense had just admitted that he was guilty all the way in the opening this matter so that doesn't sound like someone is going to ask for my standing on the next trial to correct but just to be ready made here is to assume the reins of the case or just to start that day i don't know if the record exactly right which is why i should've called bader inquiry what do you mean by that let's go on here's the language that was used and being in concerning the balancing test on a request for a continuance the court said the balancing of the sesame requires a review of the diligence shown by the defendant and an inquiry into the actual request to see if the request is being used merely as if the lang tactic again that it where he was not made in fact and mr curry tried to say the reason why he wanted counsel he was not allowed to do