he raises two issues on appeal first is his appointed counsel's failure to comply with six fifty one c the second issue is that on the prior appeal for this court had the court issued what we don't know is how we react because he was arrested he spent some time at hospital in the hospital and then spent some time in st louis police custody and those specific dates it's unclear if he was in custody while he was in the surrenders to the statue on the second is this general reference to mitigating to mr morris mental health impairments being had been set the record now documents were admitted with the you didn't do these things or did you do these things as actually implying you didn't bring up his mental health issues at sentencing in response the city says well here's the exhibit of the sentencing hearing and yes she did it so the logical assumption from that is that counsel was unfamiliar with the sentencing proceedings and what actually had happened but the court doesn't have to agree with me that does one hundred percent obvious because when you don't fill out when you don't provide proper six fifty one c compliance on the presumption that you did what you said you would do with it you comply with the rule that is it here is instead there has to be an affirmative showing on the record that you took all of the steps necessary in a six fifty one scene which includes not just reading or looking at or coming in your office the record it requires you to examine those in light of the complaints made in comply with the rule but be sure is not to make that final determination but simply to say this is not affirmatively shown in the record it doesn't comply with the rule and remained is required for additional proceedings says i'm just going to check the box is over i mean that's i e see what i'm saying is certainly i would i would say i would rather counsel says oh i didn't know i have to do that then what happens proceedings i believe that would be appropriate so we reversed for hearing on whether or not he complied because as you know i didn't and this is just a form of saturday that he might just say that of course i did this but i just forgot to check the b remand it right he could just say that certainly and i think you are correct but perhaps more i'm more involvement in the trial court would be required based on the evidence presented at the hearing these are the appropriate claims based on his conversations with mr moore and that he certifies at that point that yes i did consult with him there were no or do we routinely examine the circumstances surrounding the six fifty one see that you are a believe the standard is that when it's clear from the record that this conviction counsel had in says you know it's clear from the record well i strongly disagree you don't pursue a line of questioning your client about an issue that's missing from the sentencing hearing you don't cross examine an attorney about things that  they do not say the sentencing hearing if you know from examining the record that those things happened because it doesn't make sense now the court i mean so what you're saying is there the evidence in the record like from the cross examination clearly shows the record wasn't right it certainly wasn't examined in full and because we're alleging because mr moore a broader issues with his guilty plea in the sentencing hearing you would need to look at those transcripts so those are part of the complete record that need to be examined you can't pick and choose which things you need to look not particularly if you as an attorney think it's important enough to cross it to examine your client and help him cross examine excuse me sorry in addition to that you had some other problems so this is not a reasonable assistance a case it's a six fifty one c a sham so we're not alleging errors and prejudice we