her injury he got the call the defendant to testify his version of events got him to testify about these text messages so clearly this council did test the state's he's ultimately he lost a very understandable reasons because the lax american language that various courts of science to say that well this corner other courts mean by lack of merit is that the circuit or can review a procedure and complaints about his attorney and even though during the not the proper standard that this court in other words of use if this court looks for example at people versus errors which at the site are not that long ago this court said that the purpose of the preliminary single case for a defendant that being said there will be cases where defendant just is unable to properly and then see what his legal claims are so these four standards really make a lot of sense it allows the court to look at  coleman looked at the issues and substantive issues that the defendant raise also is ineffective assistance of counsel issues the court analyzed the substantive aspect of those issues earlier in the opinion and then kind of said while the defend raises these ineffective assistance of counsel we've already addressed these therefore there's no merit to these claims but chapman is really interesting too to the analysis of the question that we hear for today in chapman the arguments yet that's why an attorney is appointed to represent he's present is factual or so the court can look at it again the the standards are kind of a happy medium the court can look at the court and say well you know what said i thoroughly cross examine the complainant in this case including with the text messages and e mails and that wasn't really accurate here when there is a factual question of whether counsel acted appropriately in a hit such as this there is a question of ok was it a matter of trial strategy because you thought you didn't have to use it as a result of her admission that she thought it was an accident or was a big you did cross examine her with it like impeachment testimony in concepts you have to examine it it wasn't enough for the poor in that case just for the defense counsel that is to say oh no it's trial strategy that's why that that the courts have to actually examine what impact working age in the sort of analysis that it was supposed to gauge and had it gone through that the text messages had gone have had to analyze this case through determining whether there was ineffective assistance of counsel or not you therefore he's not guilty of the offense if it's meghan's then yeah he grabbed her and pushed her head into the store then its credibility at the time of trial was already on the ropes here we are at the home she told the police that ryan struck her multiple times she will testify at trial that that wasn't happening that that never happened she also admitted trial that she was being charged with filing a false report so credibility again w school to hurt her because she helps him to the fullest but she may have slipped up but she still had brian sack we don't know what she means by slipped up is it that this never really happened and she lied  card instead what he said was that the allegations regarding once the accident were not sufficient swades decision you know i don't know what the court no matter what the court meant by the allegations regarding accident were sufficient to sway its decision but certainly the text messages they have done in one case of credibility where it's a question of who is telling the truth counsel has an obligation to use the made that had trial counsel in the text messages the state may then have offered the text messages there's two problems with that argument the st is again we have the record of what occurred during the crankily defense counsel never immaterial which of course is something that if that were to be the new standard be something i would be difficult i think for the lower courts to grapple with what that means and how that's different from what has been for a while but we attempted to explain what legally immaterial would be he nothing about these text messages changes and nothing changes the severity of the injury  it just argued that there shouldn't be point immunity to legal strategy certainly in the district in contest context there's not just point immunity you have to say this is a legal decision and therefore there's no possible merit to this in the stric