detective weinberger lacks the foundation to provide this testimony there was no evidence that he had the skills or expertise to assess whatever reports he received from provides in regard to cell phone data and trial counsel never and indicate that a phone is nearby those towers and the detective testified that the phone records show the two attackers followed the victim before running him the appellate court held that this was inadmissible and prejudicial hearsay the court explained that information is hearsay when presented as numerals in a spreadsheet is still here saying when it is conveyed to a jury even though when i did and i witness identify problems as one of the robbers attacking the victim found that the improper hearsay testimony required reversal here detective wisenberg or testified that mr vincent cell phone data placed him at were near the scene of the crime just before it was committed and again ten minutes before the nine  eleven phone call came in and again there was no objection by trial counsel so though the state claims that white heard this testimony could have been interpreted as conveying that mr vincent's home w instead the state focuses on whether mr vinson was prejudiced by counsel's failure to object in order for a defendant to establish that he was prejudiced by counsel's mistakes he is not required to show the verdict rob the clients because knew quite sell sold wheat in that he he had the best or something along those lines however mostly was a while who knew why it's sold we had just purchased from him four days before and the things time him to this crime were mostly is questionable testimony where he's clearly contradicted multiple times by a detective in the victim's and this very damaging cell phone testimony it never should have come in would be helpful to address the critical argument and argue to so mr mr vincent complaining that his trial counsel did not call an alibi witness that he wanted to call he did get a new post child coun under strickland and there are three main reasons for this the st being the strength of the other evidence against him the nd being the fact that the officer did not overstate the limited probative value of th ends and the rd the fact that the challenge had been and was consistent not only with the defendant's guilt but also with the defendant's story about his whereabouts on that night got to the strength of the evidence  police the admission of which is not question in this case itself precluded that possibility and that's because in a blink this response to your question your honor the defendant told the police that he met up with sanford in mostly his mother's house and the evidence was the car during that time and that it was just the three of them during in the car all night and the defendant when asked had no explanation for the presence of the phones in the car so mostly as a guess that left the company of defendant and sanford o at or near the victim's trailer park and while the witness initially agreed with that characterization of his report then he said that that answer was in correct he received leave to refresh his recollection by looking at his report he looked at his report and he testified that the defendant's phone was near the victim's trailer park at that particular time he went on to say that it was in an area near the trailer park it was in an area northeast of the trailer park the approximate area parents trailer park and that it stayed in the area around that trailer park and the so that the officer never pointed to pinpoint the location of the defendant's phone at any time furthermore the witness went taking together what we have is that the phone could have been within half a mile of these need or approximate locations that he identified it was  to say that the defendant was that the phone was anywhere within half a mile of these locations and within half a mile of the cell phone tower which was a corner of pleasant hill road and wall street and the the map admitted into evidence shows the  this with his presence and his own home which was very near the crime scene so often so for these reasons the admission of this evidence wasn't wasn't prejudicial hasn't shown that the court failed and he duty that arose at that time in the state in iraq you should because no two euros and i do point out that even if it's some sort of critical light duty arose at that time the court assuming that the entire and that's because the even though the record doesn't reveal what the precise identities of the alibi witnesses are exactly where they would have said that the defendant was i would have said that he was a parent's home where they would have it's not this is simply a criminal inquiry mr vincent complained about trial counseling to call witnesses and he again complained he made the same complaint regarding post trial counsel's argument saying the reason trial counsel and her in til they left and right before they got pulled over i mean we practically completely exonerated and would support the idea that mostly committed this crime with others so while the men may have gotten together at some point in the night and harry's home we don't know what the alibi testimony would have been and that would place him somewhere other than near this trigger mark at the time of the crime and the record is insufficient for us to know what that testimony would have been  trailer park the sites trailer park at different times and he also clarified that his data was accurate to within half a mile what he was saying so i think he did overstate the strength of the evidence now only did he give this evidence that he didn't have skills or expertise to give but he also said basically that it was when there was an accurate up to half a mile and i think that's pretty damaging testimony and it never should have come in when there was a foundation invasion was a line of mostly very questionable testimony that was contradicted in major ways by unbiased witnesses as a final note i just wanted to address in saying the same and i both agree that an extent in terms that should not have been imposed that's argument three and however we are question different remedies the state has requested that this court reduce the sentence to the maximum