a motion asking for an evidentiary hearing regarded as at the district court level to explore this ineffective assistance of counsel claim is there is something in there that i didn't see your hon that point i guess my point is we again we have to look at what's in the record and there's precious little in here and of an evidentiary nature that deals with the alleged that effective assistance of counsel which is one of the  complaint here that's true your honor when mr womack filed and he filed a rather extensive petition with the state court some one hundred pages or something and the state court summarily dismissed his claim did not provide very actively trying to get these issues forward to the state court but the state court really didn't give him any attention whatsoever and there and there was no hearing held by the state court even though  about his counsel's deficient performance and he did provide an affidavit explaining what had occurred between him and his counsel as an exhibit to his  in that affidavit mr womack explains that he was under a lot of giraffes at the time he was very anxious about being in the number of mr womack was a very young man at the time he was twenty three years old he had been in jail for about four months he was called his lawyer and said i wanted to make a deal and his lawyer brought him a plea agreement they brought him to court and then he changed his mind he said no i you know i can't admit to these i didn't do these things and then the lawyer came back to him and said well how about if you want alford plea and so they bring mr womack back to court and when they bring him back to court  going through this process thinking this is the way he's going to guarantee himself a sentence that will allow him to get out of prison in his lifetime otherwise why would he expect this negotiation that exposes him to what he got which was eight consecutive life sentences without the possibility of parole he could have easily gotten a better result by going to trial and by challenging some of the evidence in this case it just doesn't make sense that he would think guilty if he had a full understanding the reality is counsel is the hey vs petition you know the law where we're bound by you know we have to follow strickland you know that we have to depend on what the supreme court has told us and the supreme court has been pretty clear about this as as is our own case law about the issue of what counsel allegedly said that might be erroneous i mean no no defense counsel can always prognosticate accurately they do the best they can  standard here is one of whether your client can show prejudice that but for the action of this counsel and the fact is the record shows that he signed things was there is but that is a distinguishable cases and on that case there were men and number of things that the council did that were pretty clearly wrong in this case you've got a single allegation about what the sentence was going to be that is the preface was the paragraph it's my attorneys dropped represent me my best interests are not my once or desires well you know he asked for one of the deal he was advised as has been pointed out repeatedly of the possibilities that were facing him and what counsel is faced with defense counsel was faced with in this circumstance were extraordinarily heinous crimes committed against three children and on top of that there was the burg there was the forgery and following his arrest he solicited a murder while he was in jail and the evidence against all of those crimes was overwhelming the solicitation was videotape so that left counsel with ok i can go to trial on everything in which case even if there were say a severance of the forgery or something like that there's overwhelming evidence and any jury that i'm aware of based on the facts presented in the grand jury testimony is going to be astonished at the cruelty that this person committed against these children they're going to be astonished they're going to hate him was there a possibility of the death penalty in this case counsel are no but it's kind of circumstance that of jury is going to go out afterwards and probably aster representatives to have the death penalty imposed from this sort of thing but in fact what what this what this man got in terms of a sentence was about what he could have gotten had even tried you know i disagree with that your honor if you compare the sentence structure with what he could have gotten he pled guilty to attempted murder with use of a deadly weapon on count one had he gone to trial the possible penalties on that were life without the possibility of parole those could have been run consecutive what happened was is when he entered his guilty plea the judge sentenced him as a criminal on the ground and that was a life without the possibility of parole now with the judge also yet on count two which was first degree kidnapping with the use of a deadly weapon he ran that con corrent with count one so even though there are two life without the possibility of parole sentences there one of concretely with count three the defendant was again given life without possibility of parole and that was wrong and of course because of use deadly weapon that was consecutive count five again first degree kidnapping he was adjudicated a bitch will criminal isn't it correct then that what the counsel suggested that what he got is as bad as a practical matter is what he would have gotten had a jury convicted him on all counts i gotten well he did get consecutive life without sean count two he could have gotten two instead of one life with outs on count three and so instead of having eight running wil he's got six and that's just on the plea now of course there are the how many how many how many life without you have to you have to get before you stay in jail for the rest of your life well the point being is this is that the law can change and he has the possibility of getting out duty because he says this is your best chance for leniency ok and it was his best chance for leniency because as i pointed out if you'd gone to trial the evidence against him would have been overwhelming so what and he likely would have been convicted on risk all right but the one thing that you have left to give to these kids even though you slipped through their throats and you scared the girl so bad that she jumped out of a second story window balcony to get away from th and then came back and tried to save her brothers did save her brothers but the thing that the only thing he had left to offer for leniency is the guilty plea saying i'm sorry they presented a doctor who said to a reasonable medical certainty this guy can be rehabilitated they did everything that they could to put this fellow in the best light possible for the judge and it was his best chance he would have had if he'd gone to trial he would've been able to make the argument well at least i saved the kids the additional traumatic experience of going to trial if you look at the charges that were dismissed there's a net savings of sentences there is the possibility that the statute can change with respect to the life without the possibility of parole his sentence structure is not all these sentences running a while he got six instead of eight months a while but what more is there there is the possibility as i said that the statutes you know may someday change  there are pressures on prisons these days to reduce populations but it was not a guarantee made by counsel they don't contend that there was any guarantee it was what can we do to give you the best leniency and the best shot he has was life with that was his best shot or a term of years under the possible sentences are not being any guarantees he was made aware that by everybody under the sun the record substantiates that it was his best chance and they did the best they could as i said counsel at sentencing made arguments presented evidence that he was that he could be rehabilitated judge just invite that doesn't mean it counts was in and that doesn't mean under twenty to fifty four d that the of a supreme court's resolution of the matter was objective really on reasonable really well just one quick point as the core point now you can't do more than one life without the possibility of parole mr omak received six he was not eligible for a par