possibility in this case as they go along possessed the cocaine and not douglas they saw that there was a possibility then they went on to two other possibilities second possibility was that  you know that's just the way things work in the real world doesn't have to be a deal than have to be here shipped it's just a common understanding of yeah you're after this guy if you think he's the bad one my guys le testimony yes i felt characters any reasonable defense attorney would not allow his attorney to go into another case and admit that he felt that he was guilty instead he gets fourteen years on the last one i believe these are special circumstances a call for a reasonable inference to gather with the time now i know it was you know two or three months timing that fact alone is not enough but that fact the tying together with the gravity of the situation facing mr hill and hills attorney's failure to to the point of this appeal is not to judge whether contrary was correct and finding hill was more or less credible or defendant was more or less credible it's whether the facts as presented and the jury being allowed to judge the credibility reached a proper determination based on a rational person and a reasonable person's mind starting first with where we left off a false testimony there is no proof that the state tellingly but on perjured testimony the state recognized that the testimony that came from hill and when you compare it with some of the testimony from the other witnesses including defendant there were inconsistencies but that is not sufficient solid proof of a lie and it certainly isn't sufficient proof that the state knowingly put dealings with cannabis i think that as as phil stated at the time that he was asked have you been made any deals i think his comment was i haven't been promised anything and i think that was a candid i think that was honest i think he was hoping for leniency and in order to hope for leniency he had to testify in a way that benefited the state but that's a far cry from saying that there was an active dealing plates so that would explain why his attorney allowed him to testify to his role in cannabis as for his past convictions for dealing cocaine that was going to be part of the record anyway as attorney in the many testify that was going to come out as for the time being it was a full three months after he testified at trial and as the docket entry show that was submitted on the they were not attached to the record but they were included in the brief during the time following his testimony and prior to the time the deal while his charges were still pending state had in fact entered into any sort of a deal with hill or his testimony or not for his testimony but to reduce the current charges that were faced that he was facing as for hill's guilt of being overwhelming on t overwhelming again i would just agree i agree that bill's fingerprints were found on the wrapping around the cocaine certainly that's not a good indication for his behalf but i think the evidence also that they haven't considered none of us can stand here and say for certain exactly what the full and complete truth what's that's why we have the jury that's why we're allowed to present all the facts of the jury that's why we are encouraging and telling the jury it's weight cocaine distribution and the acts i think when you bring all of this in there again they were not by putting in the affidavit that they had received an offer from hell to sell them and that is saying that the state put on perjured testimony and i think the state's recognition of the inconsistency again in hill's testimony and compared to the others recognizes that but the state recognizing that there are inconsistencies that the jury is charged with resulting is not the same thing as saying one that we conceded reasonable doubt existed again there is no case defendant syces says when you recognize an inconsistency or you put on alternative theories you are supported from what you've read it means of not supported by the record it would seem from that reading that there was something that was argued that was not supported by the facts or any testimony presented to the jury in this case everything that was argued first percent of the jury and was a reasonable inference of the it's cocaine that it was his alone that made the right he may not be telling the truth on that the other possibility that this is that it wasn't just this that again like the canvas from the garage willie had it but it wasn't he wasn't the only one in constructive possession of it there was more than one there was more than one person in constructive possession there was willie and perhaps bryant's defense perhaps it was the same deal with the cannabis there's a third possibility the third possibility is that as well he told you he didn't know anything about the cocaine act could be true and it goes on through there but that sets out the three difference and all of those possibilities are reasonable in light of the evidence the fact that were present in the jury it's not a concession i don't think again if the state recognizing the problems with their own evidence and doing their best to acknowledge those and not try and pull the jury in that maybe they don't see them alleged involvement with the gang did not create a reasonable inference under the facts here so we get back to the reasonable doubt and again we're back to believe a lie we're back to this bringing credibility into an appeal which is what an appeal is for we are allowed to look and see if the jury's finding was so improbable how quickly wrong and they go from there but we're not allowed to just simply say i have this testimony and i have this testimony the the jury heard the defendant knew the location of the cannabis that he had access to a defendant some fiance said defendant had access to the home even when hill was thousands of miles away in texas the jury heard that there was not they clearly heard evidence of his intent to exercise control over it i don't know exercising the control over illegal but also in his own personal right again to come in and take some of it and sell it and they certainly heard evidence if he had not abandoned any of this possession of it so all of the problems that defense counsel raises with hills testimony all of these inconsistencies he presented those to the jury again he was vigorous in his prostate exam a nation of him the jury was told their responsibility the jury was told of the concerns with accomplice testimony the jury was told about joint possession and it doesn't defeat possession on defendant's part the jury was  hed properly they were presented with all of this and they found beyond a reasonable doubt the defendant was guilty the evidence that he then delivered the cocaine to the defendant is similarly