as a brief syndicates this is a case with a drawn out oftentimes convoluted procedural history the defendant filed a motion for leave to file in two thousand nothing was granted and then delayed for four years under counsel tom sheets before the defendant went pro se and filed a petition which presents a complex set of issues so i'd like to give a brief overview of each of the issues of the defendants raised on appeal clarify a couple points and then answer any questions you might have so the defendants first claims that he made a substantial showing of actual innocence basin's up bence now the circuit court found that he did but the court hearing of its decision for three main reasons the first is that the court's decision was founded on  misapprehension of the defendant's self defense claim the judge said there was no evidence of self defense because the defendant didn't claim that he stabbed victor williams insulted that's and that instead the case hinged on whether the stabbing was an accident but that that reasoning is flawed because the defendant claimed self defense as to the acts preceeding the stabbing which represented a trial in which are outlined in the defendant's opening plea from page twenty five in essence the defend was trying to buy drugs from mr williams while in his car and he drove off during the deal because he was threatened by a man named jonathan pickett was also there williams jumped on chairman into the car struggled with the defendant for control of it eye and threatened him in the defendant grabbed a knife from under the seat the car was swarming spine it hit the curb it knocked a tree over and in that chaos mr williams a step so the defendant relied on a theory of self defense as to those acts preceding stabbing and accident as to the ultimate incident the jury was instructed on self defense and the prosecutor a trial asked for the instruction on reasonable persons on reasonable self defense and so that was definitely an issue second the court in failing to consider all of the evidence old and new when assessing whether the newly discovered evidence that the defendant attached to his petition which was  now the circuit court agreed that this was newly discovered material not cumulative evidence but found that it would probably have not changed the result and in part because the court didn't consider the other evidence of the defendant had attached  evidence included an affidavit from a woman named helen sanders who also corroborated the defendant's account of self defense as to the proceeding acts that she testified at first was the action and he attached this along with evidence anyway is a part of the defendant's second claim and so the third reason that the court erred here is that it found that no one knew what would have happened inside the car besides the defendant  williams but if that were many in court that would mean that the lynch evidence could never be instructive because lynch evidence by its very nature is circumstantial it's not direct evidence it's circumstantial evidence that goes to whether the victim was the aggressor yes and also the information that had been a violent robbery which he attached to the victim's affidavit as well so the defendant was essentially claiming that his trial counsel khalid bailey should have discovered this evidence and that the reason he didn't raise this ineffective assistance of counsel claim sooner was because his first post conviction counsel also failed to discover that evidence during those first post conviction proceedings which w as claiming ineffective assistance based on a failure to investigate the case so essentially when a defendant is charged with murder and self defense is at issue but one of the first stops is to determine what kind of thing we have here procedural history to understand why he went pro se it wasn't just a simple issue of he wanted to represent himself but this was a case that lingered almost in a sense was kicked around for one hears he filed his motion for leave in two thousand  granted counsel was appointed and it was assigned a time sheets and fall of two thousand and nine and at some point in two thousand and eleven counsel filed a rule six fifty one sister to picket representing that he had made the necessary amendments to the defendant's petition but no petition have been filed yet during this time the defendant also wrote numerous experts who matters to the judge asking the court to compel shantz to address the case he said he had not had any counsel he wanted him to waive it so the defendant was able to tell the court look i i want to go pro se i want to move my petition forward and the board allowed him to do so and it's no wonder that he wanted to do so given the neglect of the case and also that the case slipped through the cracks of the court nor the state recognized how long this case went on and at one point the defendant subsequent i want to go pro se because of what happens every time i get appointed counsel and i'm as a claiming deficient coun and at that point you know things got messy he had to file an amended motion for me if the case got transferred to another judge and the defendant had to go over the procedural history the record indicated that there were numerous misunderstandings but the defendant finally was able to file his petition and he addressed this issue of the hearing and the claim and he made it very clear that what he was claiming was ineffective assistance of trial counsel for failing to discover and check the dense so those are the two main issues here on misrepresentation because as to the ads preceeding the standing room definitely two different accounts the state maintains that the defendant drove around to his own accord because he wanted to steal a small amount of drugs that mr williams had put into his hand mr as the defendant drove off he for some reason grabbed onto the side of the car and was hanging onto it for dear life but the defendant said that mr pickett had threatened him and said if you drive off i'm going to shoot you and then made a motion as if to grab a weapon which scared the defendant he drove off williams jumped onto him into the car and was in the car chest deep struggling with temper control of it hit him in the eye he threatened him and friend and said i'll slow down you can let go he said no you're f ing dead and they continue to struggle at which point the defendant pulled out his knife and as i explained before the chaos ensued and mr williams a step so these are two whatever was going on and i think i don't i don't see i don't see in this piece of evidence coming in and actually recently changing the verdict and we're talking is a new creative theory that it wasn't an armed robbery conviction it was just him i mean up to the door was granted and by that point the case got transferred and the state in those proceedings in the transfer to judge brown actually said it was his third successive petition so this is a part of the confusion and a huge part of why the defendant went pro se because he wanted offensive figured out anything about that affidavit because the time sheets to do anything on this case it was to stage a representative one of the many hearings that they found evidence that johnson had been incarcerated at that time there was i don't think it was a legitimate objection just because a defendant attached a different affidavit and you evidence i'd also like to go back to helen sanders affidavit she was listed as the only other witness space science mr pickett in the to be credible they didn't say she wasn't credible what they found was that she would not alone the affidavit alone and her testimony alone would not have made a difference now this corn friendly decision and justice mcveigh dissented and said i beg to differ it would have made a hanging on for dear life of course she doesn't see what's happening inside but she seems enough to corroborate and essentially make a difference now we're not just considering not only home anymore and the defendant never said this was i discovered evidence is if he's credible which is why we need an evidentiary hearing here and i just also want to clarify that the defendant did say on initially in his first videotaped statement with police that he was afraid of the rooms and he was afraid that he was going to be robbed and we also state in the brain that there was a struggle for control of a car the defendant was hit in the face he was told or f ing dad when he said i'm going to slow down we need to get off the car is aggressively driving away from the situation and so he ate under the circumstances very clearly said no felt threatened by williams and pickett is rather than and so far as he also threatened to create of these threatening circumstances whether or not that's real the defendant in this case grant that he and the drugs in it in was that i don't think there was any evidence he grabbed anyone's hand there was evidence presented that a small amount of drugs was pouring into his hand b