point where we can withdraw the pleas of the issue is so now what do we do how do we remedy the failure here and that that's where we get into the remedy we're asking for here which is to reduce the sentence to a not extended term eligible based on his prior history i think the problem is that there is a lot of factors that make someone eligible for a senator and sentence that have nothing to do with your prior record and you know requiring a defendant to know that either ethically or even here at the arraignment that when the judge said if you're eligible for a senator sometimes it will be this range that requires the defendant to know himself whether or not he's eligible and to be able to have the legal knowledge of what's extended term sentencing is and what the factors would be so not only would it be just requiring him to know his prior history but also his you know the implications of that history and you know merely having priors doesn't make you a senator knowledgeable you know there has to be the same or similar class offense within ten years and that excludes any time spent in custody so that requires a defendant to do a lot more than just know what his history is and then you get into situations where the state might be asking for an extended term sentence based on exceptionally grillin heinous indicative of wanton cruelty or the age of the victim or that have nothing to do with the prior so if be there has to be something more than just it's good enough if you notice that it's possible in the sense of it's possible maybe one could get it it must be more than just knowing that this is what the management in addition to ensuring the race of the defendant is also to ensure or a record that you know to a certain extent shows that everything was done correctly and provide some finale of judgment was apparently that he was deprived of counsel and that his attorney wasn't visiting him at the jail and so she looked at the record and saw that on this case the attorney had been impressive been in court all these judge she asked the attorney about whether he'd visited the defendant at the jail and so her her inquiry was on that allegation again pretrial allegations of ineffective assistance of counsel or the denial coun him stop stop don't talk about the facts of this case give him a chance to talk as attorney and then they moved on so just fixed it even get into what the state claims are the claims in the he wasn't present he was not there to expound on what his claims were he did what was necessary under the law for which is he brought a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel to death judge and we don't know because there was no history whether the flames ever in his motion to reconsider sentence that alleged ineffective assistance of counsel were related to counsel's performance at the reception saying which occurred after the inquiry performed has anything to do with the people listed in any order has anything to do with his claims about whether the next rule for twelve was followed or whether or not he was the extended term responsible it reinforces their presumption so the core interior itself has not looked at just the guilty plea he perceiving it looked at the entirety of the record term was possible and then he defines possibility and it whacks you off as an event that may or may not happen and that then mentions at seven eleven that it will be for an that they in fact had no knowledge that he was eligible for an extended term sentence because they make no injection at that point i think that's a clear indication that he did in fact have knowledge in particular instances that taylor majority that is mentioning you know we're looking at the entire record i think in this particular case under these facts he in fact should be considered qualified in order to have he's a modest regarding the extended term sentence and there is no objection to that i think the very narrow facts and circumstances of this case that this defendant even we are as you said you know if he's only advised you know ten years ago we had a prior you know i wouldn't be making the same argument but i think in this case where you know surely they're after in the exact probation on certainly it would be much better had the trial court and defense counsel in the everyone mentioned the extended term at the guilty plea but again taylor is looking at the record as a whole and move requires knowledge at the time of day he pled guilty and i think you could walk at the subsequent record to reflect the fact that defendant and defense we're not getting the revocation subsequent to the police over that would help at the time we well i think if the defendant was totally shocked to find out he was eligible for an extended term signs he might mention something the first time ok there's this possibility of extended term but it really doesn't apply because when we get down to the plea nobody talks about extended time why isn't it just as reasonable that this is something goes well here we go again they're going to tell me all these things but when it comes down to it here's what i'm so it would be your position that he would never be eligible for extended term on any other grounds other than the know just you know well see that you can't recall when we where do we draw the line here the line here is to did number of other factors which can make defendants including this one eligible for an extended term and many times those won't be known until a sin see hearing which is why i'm arguing  that is what some of the case laws are and he is and i am arguing back to early in thompson where they're looking at the entire record to show defendants knowledge that in this particular grew uniformly except in compelling situations because of the failure to remains a claim properly denies the trial court the opportunity to correct any error that's wasting time in judicial resources so i would reasons and then he talks about this evidence in this key evidence so i think when you get down to paragraph c you can assume that the two prior paragraphs are the key evidence he's talking about and so if your honour's would like to give this thing our victory on a forfeiture we would be happy i think it's a very interesting issue in taylor with a dissent so little as a legal nerd i would like to see you decide on that but i recognize that it is entirely up to courts discretion you know if you're going to overlook the forfeiture own one brief wrap up sentence i think in this case there's no one reason to overlook defendants for future even though i like the argument and i think in this case i was attracted to the trial judge's comment that and this is part of the reason why it's not just for this to find it he said this that this defendant is going to be one of those defendants who do a life find that it was based on that knowledge of prior evaluations because just treatment did not ever consider things that were raised in front judge picks on and it was a completely different judge and just in so whatever judge fix on that day which i would know it was not the last day which would be the day the defense presented a case that just fixes knowledge of what happened on day one of the of the revocation hearing has nothing to do with what defense counsel did in terms of entering evidence also with no more information you know the reason we needed i think corey is a determined what the defendant's issues hundred lying offense on january fourteenth twenty sixteen their reputation alleges that he did something on january fourteenth twenty of the petitioner of all of the alleges things that happened on january fourteenth that same day so whatever happened on january fifteenth may or may not be having anything to do with that and i'm also not aware of any case law that says that it is appropriate to conduct a crank or inquiry with almost a preliminary inquiry without the defendant present that's a discussion regarding a constitutional issue which would be your right to affected this is a council and it seems to me that that being a critical stage the defendant should be there so for those reasons i would encourage this court to remand the matter  revocation at the first appearance on the p c r are sufficient to show what the defendant knew at the time he pled guilty because the defendant didn't object that the failure to object at that point is counsel's failure to counsel and may have you know with different facts have led to a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel on that basis but we can look at what happened at the hearing afterwards to determine