testified that mr mills was part of that purpose in fact he provided no evidence establishing that mr meis even knew that there was a criminal purpose in going to sunday off one's house all that he testified to is that he down and under street crossing the street walking towards the police office there's only one individual remaining in the vehicle right yes there were other individuals that were in the vicinity of the home  now there's nothing criminally inherently criminal and possess weapons however deep they they were also for them or they were not able to tie any of these weapons directly to my client state these weapons what type and match to the intention to rob the residents of their own no young that's incorrect there was no communication opening tent to rockville all white happiness there was a communication between two cousins that there were cast a large amount of cash coming up well so they didn't say we want to rob this individual no they though arrest or the location of this individual and know the even told the police officer at his first entered view that mr mills was in part of the press he didn't use the jury to infer from all of these facts that we've just discussed i wish to this point hasn't included that there had made was not or hurtful nor helpful to my client and it's possible the the fact that he was not hurtful to my client is key but the fact that he was not helpful i do assure us that there was room type of understanding that they'd be immune from any additional prosecution immunity for the information provided while you are not equal doing and you offer of proof there is no requirement for unity because we have to take into no potential witnesses have pled guilty and the request was for past sentencing and bass the request could have gone further afoot thirty days after sentencing or need to determine whether there was still issues to be resolved  may please the court house all before i forget the trial court did ask specifically asked defense counsel whether those two hope to finish testimonies would be beneficial to defendant and the defense counsel admitted she did not know the only thing that the two co defendants had stated at that point was a complete denial of involvement in this crime since then they had pled guilty but of course that means that they were at least cooperating with the state to some degree there's no indication that that would somehow make their testimony more beneficial to defendant anything it would make their testimony more likely to harm defendant just as doing that doing pled guilty and also testified truthfully that this matter in this case  possessed the revolver during this series of events that's the other thing i wrote down just to tears there was testimony from doing or at least from the officer actually from do on that he identified one of the exhibits as the gun the defendant that before leaving the car one of the and as the officer testified that that gun was found in the proximity of do and go definitive gorton in the back yard of a stranger going on in the middle of the night there is no reasonable obviously no reasonable explanation for those two to be observed in a stranger's backyard in the middle of the night near a laughlin's house that goes to this fish the of the evidence argument deporter remember the high standard of review that said when looking at the evidence in the light most favorable the prosecution whether the evidence was sufficient to convict if in if you have a reasonable doubt and also allowing all reasonable inferences in favor of the state the only reasonable inference to make based on the evidence presented in this case the only logical inference is that these three went to a lawful in the neighborhood based on doolan's observation the weekend before of a large amount of cash in it sa and these three armed with guns also clear plastic gloves were found on defend this person he was found in the proximity of a laughlin's house in someone's backyard and all of this was corroborated at least partially by  police not only do once testimony police found the guns they do and said that these three possessed near the three co defendants the defendant was found with clear plastic gloves a lot one testified that yes do one was there the weekend before and he did observe me getting into the safe and there was a large amount of money in there the police testified yes we searched the lawfulness house and there was twelve thousand dollars in cash as well as a small amount of  his home so clearly allowing the only reasonable inference i would say in this case is the defendant took multiple substantial steps in committing these three offenses home invasion armed robbery  and residential burglary especially when we look at that evidence in the light most favorable status required as for the second argument if the trial court's motion to continue to deny him that th factors the trial court must look at include the likelihood of witnesses testimony in the near future as well as the likelihood that the testimony would be beneficial to defend it the exact opposite of both of those were found in this case it was clearly not an abuse of discretion for the trial court to grant this continuance in fact it was would be improper for them to grant a continuance based on the fact that they knew well before this well before prior to trial they knew that these three these two witnesses were going to invoke their fifth amendment privilege more importantly on counsel's own admission their testimony was not beneficial to tiffin it in any way it would as the trial court said it was purely speculative that they would have anything beneficial to defendant to testify to on the contrary since their complete denial of any involvement in this case they are they had pled guilty showing at least an indication of cooperation with the state so to two  big factors but their likelihood of testifying in the near future was virtually nil based on their guilty plea motion any motion to reconsider of sensing motion and the fact they could appeal after that the fact that their counsel had that that they made the proper call in denying that opinions that for the same reason defense counsel's failure to subpoena these two witnesses was an ineffective assistance the easiest way to dispose of this argument is that there was no prejudice the defendant the outcome of the proceeding would have been exactly the same even if these two witnesses had testified the burden on on the ineffective assistance to show prejudice is on defendant and there's simply nothing in the record that indicates or suggests these two witnesses would testify to anything beneficial to defend it at all so to speculate we can speculate on what any witnesses what any witness would say and anytime we can defend his mom i say that he was with her whatever there's are simply the burdens on defending there is no up nothing in the record that suggests their testimony would be beneficial to defendant so the outcome of the proceedings no prejudice second prong strictly fails also as people v human which i cited in my brief states it's improper if you know beforehand that someone isn't planning on invoking the fifth amendment privilege which trial counsel admitted in this case and that means that trial the trial court was well aware of it too it would be improper to call those witnesses let alone if they had anything beneficial to say which of course they there's nothing in the record the suggest they did in this case however let's say that trial counsel did improperly subpoena these witnesses and  move for them to testify presumably the trial court would have done the right thing the trial court was well aware the record shows that these two were planning on invoking their fifth amendment privilege presumably the trial court would let them testify anyway either way the outcome of the proceedings  any person incarcerated on bilbo off friends who does not supply bill and against whom a fine is levied on conviction of such our friends shall be allowed a credit of five dollars for each day the key language is against to create some kind of doubt in the mind of the jury that's not the question here the attorney here doesn't know whether he will successfully protect himself would be for me getting assumes to determine whether they can successfully protect themselves with the fifth amendment that is a determination that was need that must be done by the trial court and of chocolate never made that determination as to foster's testimony foster clearly testified that mr do one was and to reply i his first interview mr dooling implicated dozer buying malarky garden and then said that my client was not involved in this but then when he came back later he was offered a plea deal and that is when he amply kidded my client he changes his story as to my client issue here is it doesn't matter whether mr bligh when a dead testimony or whether the pleaded guilty we we don't know if they were cooperating in fact the only reason there was a sentencing issue still on the table for them is because they w examination of the nature of their testimony and whether the nature of that testimony not whether it was helpful to my client which is the hope we act here but it's whether the nature of back testimony was death from mental to down and if it was not statements one is more the bellows more information is given not that there's any type of discrepancy between you speak to that yes there was a change by force to testify foster said that he said the