that initially this court does not need to reach reinhard or even reach the intissar issue instead this case can be decided on the affected ms arguments and because of ineffective assistance of counsel which i will discuss in more in general in this particular good will in general the trial court could impose a sentence anywhere between three years to life in this particular case due to the end monuments and due to the fact that mr cortez was only told that he would be receiving a three year intissar term in this case only three years could be imposed for the mazhar however generally with extended term intissar if lionheart is firms they tried just could actually going to be on amazon are for and so the mere possibility that the u s army can be discharged early does not for close relief in this case means it's hypothetically it is possible that he could serve less time but again as i said on a sense of order he's subject to the possibility of life and on the department of corrections website they're treating it as a possible wife time in this are so that is the reality cortez is facing with respect to the ineffective assistance meant that the trial court could make any expressed findings as to whether or not there was reasonable probability that the defendant would accepted the state's twenty year offer counsel known the extent of the confession and some of the additional details that boy of the trial court determines with that the aggravating evidence came not from the defendant's subsequent can in confessions of the other two acts of sexual abuse but that the aggravating evidence in the trough judges knew came from the victim's statement however and this is sort of misapplying the prejudice prong it doesn't it doesn't matter so much what the trial court but we that was the aggravating emissary didn't want to reasonable attorney would believe is the most aggravating evidence what matters is what mr strategy was to per trade mr portis only having confessed to one of the acts and he said it is this the subsequent confession significantly weakened his sentencing theory he said that these actions confessions were cold and very aggravating not only because they added extra counts and extra incidents that occurred with the defendant in the victim but because they specified of sentencing was almost completely destroyed by these extra confessions and so based on this there is a least a reasonable probability they he would have recommended the twenty year sentence didn't was his theory and so with him gone again there's a reasonable probability that he would have recommended the other plea and there's a regional probability that the defendant would have accepted his recommendation and went along with it  counsel clearly trial counsel was deficient in this case the fact is that he simply failed to read the discovery that was presented to him he tried to state tendered a there were three counts charged there were three towns in the op attorney recognize there were three counts but he was going again his theory was whether it was a reasonable theory or not his theory possession but is there any inference that all that is possible that the defendant what if taken let's assume the advice was different would have taken twenty years i think the inference can be drawn by the fact that she took his attorney essentially in response to this court's question and implications should the supreme court affirmed reinhart i think the answer is that there will be no implications because this sentencing which showed the correct position of the correct term so the failure to impose to included include the issue in the motion to withdraw a guilty plea well the motion to reconsider sentence is a fatal waiver but why clearly that would be reviewable and so i understand that there is perhaps an inconsistency to the position that in taking but the position has to be yes and something that is really latent and would have been  the point of imposition six afford includes the appeal of it and again to the extent that this issue is based something that occurred to get a guilt the recommended sentence of twenty years or blind plead to the same presumably the same count they offer twenty years was that twenty years plus three years and twenty supervised release was it twenty plus ten years twenty plus natural life i don't recall the record saying one way or the other and the basic truth is mandatory is a gradual lease is not something that can be subject there would certainly be i think the easiest and most rational answer but understand it's not a possibility and also realistically it's not inconsistent with why while the legislature determined it really would require a different form of remedy and again when you're talking about the nature of a negotiation and this are if you had ever been part of a negotiation i think the next the next thing i would observe is that there is no due process right and in and on and it was declined i think that in reading the defense brief one would think that somehow the defendant had a right to build into the fact that an offer but other than that there was certainly no promise to the defendant from counsel that he would get a significantly lower sentence to twenty years so will i think that  attorney's failing to investigate and is deficient performance he received a five year longer sentence than if he'd accepted the twenty year offer it is not required how do you make that connection what's what's the breach here we want representations to council make actual representations the attorney said that he recommended he had his recommendation what representation a factor law did combat confessions to two extra incidents of sexual abuse which according to the attorney are very aggravating and it didn't detail the the men who defended used to do the sexual abuse there's a reasonable probability the attorney would change his but she says we're going to show how do we get around counsel saying when he testified it would not have changed my mind i don't want i don't believe that that is in the reasonable inference from what he was arguing in one who is planning on arguing that he would have changed this recommendation and it didn't this is not a case where we're simply arguing that the attorney purchase and again the issue it is that there's a reasonable probability this would have changed because his entire theory has been changed and the evidence is very aggravating evidence he now has in his pos there's a reasonable probability his judgment on what sense would have been imposed is also going to change now would you respond to counsel's argument with regard to the waiver forfeiture being fatal here wal reason for why plain error was appropriate in plain view was appropriate in that case and there were there were promises that were made but still there is substantial rights have been violated and thank you thank you very much