press mr moore's coerced and involuntary statements well below the standard in this case the match the judge found that a reasonable person would have believed that he was being given a promise of leniency in mr moore's case based on the circumstances surrounding his confession to the police because of the first statement was involuntary we only need to look at the record just that the attorneys performance fell below the standard the affidavit of kim jordan the trial attorney shows that he didn't even recognize the motion to suppress based on  shows that the trial attorney only recognized the miranda issue thinking that the miranda issue was out the window he didn't look any further he breached both his duty to investigate the facet of the incident and the the trial attorney didn't do any investigation regarding the statements by his own admission he didn't hire an investigator clear record is as it is because of the statements that mr moore and lanny will gave to the sheriff's department that year so the state had no other evidence other than this statement itself it was in story through his brother and supposedly somebody else why is that sufficient reason to not make a motion because there was no purpose to the motion and secondly was  admonished to talk with great more mr morris brother who was as these facts that out a police informant ten years prior which involved in a murder came to cooperate with police and then was not charged with any  from mr moore's deposition before the post conviction court where he explains that the detectives convinced him to waive his right to an attorney and given a confession in exchange for going to bat for him just like they minute the other subject of whether there was no purpose to making a home from because it was so apparent that he didn't matter whether the confession was introduced because he told his brother the story and his brother would have the same thing yes your honor as the briefs that out there is nothing there is no record that mr moore confessed to other people in fact it's the opposite have told you to play dot would you been able to do that or did they tell you everything so you couldn't play it off and raymond morris says no they didn't really tell me everything what he knew was that they were his brother was involved in in something and that the police were looking at him for this murder charge and he went to his brother for an feist's on how to handle that should he turn himself in or should he run away his brother told him turn yourself and cooperate do what i did and they well they will all the more reason for the attorney to have filed a motion to suppress to be able to get those statements after table and then begin with an investigation to see what the police had at the time it's significant that in the course of giving his statement mr watt handed over the his client his climb it was not yet charged with as far as i understand he was not gets charged with anything he was charged perhaps on information and the prosecutor had not yet presented the know i didn't mean to suggest that but what i'm saying is that at that at the time he received a plea offer additional received a plea offer to plead guilty to the felony murder counsel had to make a decision confession if there were no confession yes but even without petitioner statements to police the trial lawyer knew that petitioner had made moment and i think that it's a reasonable inference from what she says that yes we all talked about this we all sat down as situation or as he went home he wanted to talk to his brother i don't know what the relationship with the figure is but i think it's at least a fair inference from that that she had heard exactly what mr the brother raymond moore had heard which that mr the brother would not have testified against a brother in fact he's been entirely forthright in every counsel has no argument the brother would say well counsel counsel knows that his client h right but throughout their contacts and throughout that stationers conversation with the police and throughout his conversations with his brother which we know about both from his interview with the police and his testimony in his in the post conviction proceeding we know that petitioner throughout was even if he didn't like the fact that felony murder does not require intent that he knew he was guilty o because he had committed this murder in the course of the felony and so even though he insisted that the killing itself was an accident still confessing to the crime suppress clearly there are potential grounds for suppression maybe he wouldn't have won maybe one of the magistrates thought that the confession was involuntary  it's not ineffective assistance because the lawyer had to make the decision that he made at that time in light of all of the circumstances and again edition was not yet charged  sessions to these other people you consistently have told his lawyer i committed the elements of a felony murder whether he liked it or not and so counsel has to make the decision if we are to go to trial what is our defense what possible defense kent can we now it's accidental is not a defense to felony murder and so what the lawyer had to do was determined based on the information that he received from his client from th everybody involved yes and i don't know whether those people were turds i believe they were charged i don't remember how how everything turned out in those other cases time i believe that based on the record that the information that counsel had including his conversations with the to sure about the precise circumstances the facts will not legal circumstances they counsel reasonably believes that he was not in custody at that time but again i think the dispositive point the most important point in this case is is not whether there was some basis to file a motion to suppress whether there was some factual basis on which counsel could have moved to suppress but whether reasonable counsel could have concluded that it would be fruitless to do so and that instead his client would be better served much of a burden well i mean he was he was also faced with a client who repeatedly and consistently had admitted each and every element of felony murder and claim in the post conviction case and possibly in this case i did since it was an issue on appeal i didn't spend much time with that he did discuss the sentencing issues at excerpt of record fifty eight fifty nine but he did not explain that that was part of his calculus and advising his client that it would be concluding with his client that a motion to suppress wouldn't serve any purpose and that instead they should go ahead and accept the plea offer thank you thank you very much told that while he will highs or mandy moore were in the metro area with her older brother raymond moore at this point detected us and made a phone call to raymond moore detective and stated that he had been talking with his two brothers and they were deciding whether they were going to come to the sheriff's office in grants pass  to raymond moore's residence trying to find the brothers and then randy morse deposition she says we called the sheriff's department at that time and they told us that if we were not there by three o'clock they would come and get us and our family would not like the way they did it and we knew what that meant and you are eighty seven so that corroborates that police didn't say exactly what they said i would like just to reiterate that i think this attorney had nothing to lose plus another fifteen years if the judge added that on in this case he was given a measure eleven sentence and part of the plea was that he would get three hundred months and no a reduction so he wasn't gaining anything by