was about a year after the motion was filed mr herrera was represented by a new attorney juliet or who also five six zero for the certificate but did not a man and mr clements motion the defendant trial judge when he imposed sentence in this case took into consideration a factor inherent in the offenses council the first issue you were lining people versus creating their arguing that plea he did just give a general statement in his certificate that he had consulted with the defendant regarding this contentions of error in this case i think that the problem with that is there it is general and we as i said we don't know in this case we can't tell from this case whether anyone actually did discuss with mr herrera his contentions of error with respect to his plea and this is a case where i think it's really significant because if the court  one to go to trial so with there in this record and the generalized nature of mr clements i'm certificate we don't have the assurance that's required by strict compliance that the plea was discuss be matters that were outside the record which were not brought to the trial judge's attention and the reason why the supreme court requires and why this court require strict compliance is because of the very fact that if you do not raise something in a motion you are forever waving their motions so particularly with respect to the police where there was no motion and we don't know i mean certainly ms yet or doesn't have a say in her certificate that she ever spoke know whether she did have any conversations with mr quinn and in fact the record reflects that she for at least with respect to the defendant that she first spoke with the defendant on the very day that the motion to reconsider sentence was heard in court richie there were a series of attorneys in that case representing the defendant there was an attorney who represented the plea who files believe it was  rule the purpose of rule six zero four do you would be frustrated if an attorney who did not actually represent the defendant at the post police hearing did not strictly comply with rule six o four d and i think goes to two points indicated that he didn't indicate that i'm sorry didn't it kate and her six zero forty certificate that she had made any amendments necessary to adequately present the facts and in fact we've identified another defect in the proceeding in which the state amendments necessary to the pleadings there also is now the language of rule six zero four d so does that mean he meaning any man is necessary to the motion to reconsider sentence which of course he didn't but that doesn't necessarily mean he statement shows strict compliance because we don't i think from this record looking at your certificate we do not know if either of these attorneys ever spoke with mr herrera about the plea because there was no motion i mean i didn't recall anyone in the white case there was a statement on the record or say in this case if there were a motion to vacate the plea and a motion to reconsider sentence i think we could then give context to this general statement the contentions of error in this case and say both have been filed so obviously he spoke with mr hariri about both the sentence and the plea and i think that's why it also demonstrates that we're not going to take the issue of strict compliance to extremes to ridiculous extremes but there still remains a question in this case particularly under the facts of this case whether either attorney strictly complied get together with the transcript and put enough to meet the requirements of the rule because in her certificate first i don't think she specifically stated on the record what she had consulted with mr of a situation say where our first public defender represents offend all the way up to the motion whatever motions filed the second defender files no certificate at all i think there are serious concerns about whether that second attorney who's now the attorney of record has effectively represented the defendant if there's no indication on the record that that attorney has complied with the dictates of rule six zero four d so i don't think you can read read as expansively as anyone from the public defender's office would alternative of attempting to move to withdraw his plea and based upon the record we here we have a certificate that says that there was some discussion about the case there was no discussion  considered the contentions of error you know if you to be ahead of the new was lying let's assume for the purposes of argument that his statement about discussing the case u any way or who at any time represents this quite if any certificate filed by one of two or more attorneys representing siriano this individual is saying that she has reviewed the funds contentions regarding sentencing doesn't she have an obligation to say to the defendant i know you've already filed this motion but just to be sure let's in other words you don't have to use a second language you don't have to say it as you said to him but you have to convey the message that is contained in the rule such that has to be a showing they have the attorney who's representing the defendant and a post please proceeding has performed every test which the supreme court has has said is necessary and the reason for that is because you petition and assert that either of his attorneys consulted with him regarding the plea i don't believe the record contradicts that because there is no certainty from what either the certificate said or anything that was said on the defendant at the time of the post plea hearing who has never been involved in the case you can't have any assurance that this attorney is effectively representing the defendant whatever post we motion is filed with our determination the bed turning an extremely frustrating situation that you have to be corrected just by education and training communication we we'd like to think that we are educating the i don't i don't mean to fortunately we keep