statute is constitutional were they happy to take questions on any of us with respect or you know one moment those convictions petition sufficiently alleged that his trial attorney was arguably wanted to testify counsel stated that counsel would not put coleman on the stand leading coleman to believe it was council's decision whether he testified moreover the trial court never a modest moment of his right to testify i forget is there anything in the record regarding his background mr holmes yes shown any any prior contact with criminal justice system mr coleman had to juvenile educations and that's the jury instructed the defendant's right not to test yes and you think do you think that put the defendant and i think the instruction whether or not the instruction was given to the jury and in fact they might even be so notified during board here and i'm not sure when that happened here but doesn't that put the defendant on notice that he has a right to a one of five personal fundamental rights that must be made i do you reconcile smith where the cases that say when it comes to the right to testify the burden is on the defendant to say i want to testify even in the face of counsel's defense counsel's decision a work of work information that he should why shouldn't because it's such an easy  necessarily comes from evidence outside the record so there's really no no support for an argument that the record needs to show an assertion in the trial court arguably then he's going to search in the petition and that assertion is here one of the difficulties i have with the sort of pc's based on an allegation of being deprived of your right to testify let's say he let's say you were granted trial yes and he chooses not to ineffective assistance of counsel claim where does prejudice come into play is it presumed prejudice simply because he didn't knowingly actual size that right to testify or do you have to  and have an entry hearing where the defense counsel would testify and i thought that's what you suggested youngblood the defense counsel would have to testify and the defense would have to testify and then the trier of fact would have to make a determination so what you're really saying is that every time these sort of allegations are made it has to go in to an evidentiary hearing and that just doesn't seem right you know that's a big jerk because if the first is the allegation needs to be that his testimony would have been relevant to a  eleven yes but that that case is to the extent that it did not reach the issue of prejudice i think this course identify that that's a necessary component and in the cases and youngblood in parks and numerous other cases identify that either in the protect the dead defendant's petition or in his affidavit but there was taken as true as required post conviction to see things that was taken as true that he actually miss advice and that if you testify this gang evidence coming in well that didn't have anything to do with whether or not the gang up it entire line of cases that has made that statement it's a snow actually is one of them but this course has since rejected this dreadful decision which was kind of the one of the earlier case that said that this is enough to establish just test is just a inconsistency in his own affidavit he says on one hand that my attorney said it would be a bad idea to testify because it could damage the case but my tourney didn't tell me that i had a right to test well if his attorney told him he had it was a bad idea that implies that he recognizing the defendant briefs that the analysis of ineffectiveness claims that the time of the representation and at the time of the representation which is two thousand and four if it had been six years since the juvenile court act had been amended to using the petitions that after jonathan told his attorney he wanted to testify counsel said it would be a bad idea for me to put you on the stand which is what led them to believe that it was council's decision and obviously this even does nothing to impart to jonathan  knowledge that it was just but but to be clear he he he doesn't say i'm not going to put you on the stand i'm not going to call your you cannot testify because i  anything like that well i will tell you that this is like that in the action of putting him on the stand at least let me suggest a situation where defense counsel would meet that particular state that particular state would be made by defense counsel when the defendant wants to testify to something that defense counsel cannot allow his client testifying to you understand what i'm saying i understand you're saying but the allegation of the titian read together or that there was not only this statement but this is reading conjunction with the allegation that there is no  discussion where you were what you would now write that to the extent the defendant wanted to testify the defendant told his attorney what he was going to testify to if he took the stage certainly that's a fair inference to take from what happens in a criminal case with defense counsel preparing his wings and that was make that statement it does seem like he probably would have explained what he wanted to testify to better this is this is on its face is not an attorney saying you shouldn't test by breath think about this if i can't put you on the