that twenty three to maximum of twenty years was appropriate wells also understood that you would be able to challenge improper proceedings yet when you told his attorney that he wanted to challenge the attorney just told him that it would be a waste of certificate issue do you expect us to rule out anything else yes your honor i think that would just go back for a second stage proceedings which  already reminded that would be that they would remain on for a second seat for so we might get someone appointed that knew how to do it and if they knew how to do it they could flesh out the claims that you're asserting on behalf of your client and we might get an intelligible ruling that we could then opine you've gone it's my position that the record as it stands is sufficient to show isps that he made a substantial showing that is sufficient for an evidentiary hearing however if this court disagrees yes i certainly would  if the defendant made some sort of reasonable expression that he wanted to appeal and or if there are crowns for and if there are grounds for a motion or draw such that are reasonable depending on the circumstances but don't want to appeal here we have advantages and disadvantages of taking the appeal and making a reasonable efforts discover the defendant's wishes here the allegations show that most counsel had by some about the disadvantages of taking the pill a little bit by telling him that it would be a waste of time but he certainly did not explain the advantages of an appeal which would have been having counsel to help him decide if you had grounds for most of the trial there was a to do to consult because the rational defendant in those circumstances would have learning from his mistakes which that's all i can tell anyone can ask counsel also failed to argue miller versus alabama had been kind of june of that year and counsel did say that you can be transit immaturity of us it doesn't prove that he is just an iridium a plea horrible person who should be treated like a terrible offender so for these reasons there is at least and i'm frivolous conceding that twenty years was appropriate and also that he believed he could appeal his sentence and third there's a non frivolous argument that the trial court failed to substantially comply with and there's also substantial showing that separately that these wills was involuntary where it was on that on the erroneous belief you would receive a fair sentencing hearing and that's the same argument that provides a basis for the  errors and he demonstrated non frivolous grounds for post the motion under floors or take out that sufficient to show prejudice for the duty to consult and is this estate would take the position that this gentleman eighteen years of age has admitted guilt to a heinous crime that he's clearly guilty of and incorporates actions is violence and it and actions against an end as this individual walking down the street nearly beat him to death left him stripped and partially naked to die on the side of the road and now he's claiming that he did not understand the consequences of his plea agreement at the time to be made so he's raising in effect of assistance of counsel because he's arguing that his counsel should have advocated more strenuously at the time of the plea or rather excuse me at the time of the second imposition of son's i and or that the trial court should have instructed him that by pleading guilty to this offense it would be necessary to file a motion to withdraw that plea of guilty prior to challenging the length of the sentence imposed this defendant got the benefit of his party and he got a pretty good bargain that he was charged with aggravated kidnapping and robbery facing a penalty of thirty years in prison on the aggravated kidnapping alone he got the robbery charge dismissed and he got a the state to read reduced from the maximum sentence only twenty years how he got that i don't know if i was the state's attorney i would not have agreed to it this guy clearly has issues and cannot be allowed to walk in society given he actions of what he has clearly done and what the evidence clearly establishes he's pled guilty to evidence is overwhelming we have three confessions from come to defense we have this  we're here trying to figure out why this gentleman ought to be allowed out to withdraw his guilty which is really what we're trying to discern from the city's point  responses to that one i think the record does suggest that because in his petition he states that it should be in the form of a certificate i agree why he didn't file the certificate i have no explanation for would be  prison i don't think there's an opposite imprints that's provided for by law which is to suggest that in the absence of the certificate we just assume noncompliance if you look at this petition he says and petition that he has done all those things he's consult problem i don't understand where in the areas i mean yeah could be cleaner but there's been no suggestion that appellant counsel has failed to do something he's required or she's required to do under six fifty one and the transcripts of savings when you look at the record it looks like the only party the checkout transcript seedings as the state that joel fletcher checked oh there's actually a record in there that identifies it it's not just the docket entry that indicates the transcripts were checked out there's a another sheet of paper in the right that indicates those transcripts manda twice in this case so i think you have anything to add to that issue idle ok i wasn't aware i don't know how you found that i went through that darn thing trying to figure out who you know i saw the said you know i suppose i could argue that he doesn't need necessarily to check it out he could review it at the clerk's office but i mean if you're looking for evidence that i can present that he actually reviewed it you know i don't have any arguments oh pretty dresses all of these arguments hasn't six fifty one didn't satisfy you know so that would be the position of the state but if the court uses something else is required certainly specific it's true in all of these cases involving juveniles or sterile facts that does not make them a bad person we don't look at the facts committed in the same way we do as we  adult so the fact that someone did something terrible when they were seventeen doesn't speak to who that person will be when they're twenty or twenty five or thirty and because of that council is in effect or for not arguing well