motion has no effect shall be struck and this is the exact situation that we're dealing with here on the same day that counsel filed his motion to reconsider sentence mr stevenson also filed a timely proceeding motion to appellate counsel's office felt the need to get a ruling on a pro se motion when when counsel had done everything he was he had a duty to do well your honor it's would be no question about it  be what was the point behind the action from the state apart defender's office if the concern of the state appellate fender's office was that jurisdiction of this court might be called into question because it was an unresolved pending post trial motion maybe but the fact is that when you want to proceed under that possibility there's always the flipside to that very concern which is that we have proper jurisdiction and to the extent you're going to dismiss the original notice of appeal we get you may be giving up our jurisdiction because we don't have we may not have jurisdiction based on the second notice of appeal think you're sort of caught between a rock and a hard place but that's what lawyers do and they exercise their judgment i just have to question the judgment that was actually sized in this case your honor i'd like to  to people versus area which is very actually similar to the case that bar and that case defense counsel had filed a notice of appeal and the second thing motion to find it then filed a post emotional like alleging ineffectiveness while you're on a boat stay and we're not even talking about a post from motion we're talking about a motion challenging the sentence that was imposed what more do you really mean what hum any of those sort of motions should on the prosaic motion for reconsideration of sentence didn't happen for a year later i understand what you're saying your honor and i think a good quote from serial goes exactly to this point  look at motion i'm not going to consider it like and i'm not going to rule then we would have proceeded what if he had said that at the and at that year late hearing what if he had said that instead of rial judge was right that the decision by the trial judge imposes upon us the charge stiction that he needs to rule on a motion and i'm not so sure that that is a valid which shows that the court heard the same actively participated in out one but two hearings on this issue there was no objection let me ask you about that doctor who seems to me that the doctrine of revestive and concerns appeal and then a decision by one party to dismiss that notice of appeal and proceed on the subsequent notice of appeal and that subsequent notice of appeal is far far  motion pending and resolved quite the opposite me it happened you may have done all that work and simply go back to the position that you were in the original and that appeal that's why we did what we did it's routine practice in our office to do what we did and as i mentioned if you're not prepared to find your section we are prepared to see that supervisory order and i think there are some real issues an appeal here that i'd like to when the trial judge exercise that discretion to rule on a proceed motion for reconsideration of sentence then you had here you are challenging what is inherently a matter of discretion factors like the move instill a sense that a fun it's right to speedy fair trial the interest of justice the history of the case which this case had only been pending for four months are you saying that without such a showing defendant's constitutional right to a fair procedurally sound trial which an attack which necessitates the making of a sufficient record to establish that a defendant has been afforded fair process there they were specifically addressing that the trial court needs to consider these factors they need to make a record of it so that we can ensure that this decision to grant or deny continuance was needed considering the important issues at hand what were the important issues here and given and he presented his now occasions and to the extent that he could persuade them that he had that opportunity i'm not sure you know i don't know if you're talking about prior consistent as to the crime but mr stevens contended that these two officers that observed the inside the building were the officers that transported him to the police station and we have testimony from we know that officer wayne or actually took to find into the hospital from the police station so that wasn't that and of his contact with mr stevenson we know this even some did receive treatment at a hospital there is potentially a real issue here with regard to an allegation of police misconduct a serious issue that both the state and defense counsel wanted to investigate with the continuance again this issue had only been pending for a matter of months we're not doing the situation that had been on call for concessions made by the parties to move forward with a continuance in fact they agreed to simulate the testimony of john gavin the complaining witness in this case in order to facilitate a continuance when we look at walker they noted that we're it's a bench trial where the witnesses are primarily police officers or state's attorneys it's much easier to reschedule and counsel should be at least given the opportunity to tell the court how much time it would need and attempt to get a continu because this was a critical stage only the sixth amendment right to counsel on a second motion for reconsideration sentence or does he only have the right to counsel on the first motion for reconsider ensure that citizens right to counsel is checked it sure we don't have that happening in fact there's twenty pages of discussion between stevenson and the court without any mention of waiver all you want to say something for your doctorin assertion by the defendant which might not even be before us had your office objected to that ruling on the merits you know nine when the record on its face motion for a continuance on the day of trial was put forth by the people who wish to obtain that complaint and indeed defense counsel agree to that people should be granted time but this was not it didn't make it difference motion to once with the truck court and arranging this hearing it's a repeated motion to hear this which had never been called in the first place and then when it comes forward they don't make provisions to have to fend of represented by public defender or any anyone and they don't appear themselves so and  a final verdict notice of appeal filed and sue a sponsor for months later the court decided to reverse its decision and that's what we have here here we have the time we filed a motion the court had discretion to hear it and it made a ruling second the trial your honor the state did a majority of the talking on this point whatever we know defense counsel not only wanted this but was trying to facilitate it through agreeing to stipulate to the testimony of junk  crinkle hearing defense counsel that stated that he went over trial strategy with the defendant and defendant wanted to go to trial we did not have any specifics over whether or not he investigated this serious allegation of police misconduct himself well and he wanted you have the record as well that the defense counsel talked extensively at some point down the high price when his fact of this was challenged and he talked extensively with his client and was fully aware of what the allegations were regarding police misconduct and decided he had sufficient information to go forward we're all you're saying that he was wrong i judgment no your honor i'm not saying he was wrong in the judgment i'm saying that contention by counsel is rebutted by the record the clear record we have here in which he says the day of trial i just learned about this allegation of police misconduct i need more time to investigate it so the day of trial he's saying he didn't investigate the fact that somehow after a trial feast magically come up with this information it doesn't make any sense and it shows that he did not get a fair trial and  stevenson received ineffective assistance of counsel under people versus moore a defendant has the right to specify and support his claims of ineffectiveness here since it was not afforded that right when he was only able to argue that first claim regarding the police misconduct this case should be remanded for a proper crinkle hearing on all of the issues he alleged many of which are off the record and cannot be discerned simply from the trial court's independent knowledge of this case specific leave the alibi and what