pled guilty to retell facts in exchange for a sentence of one year only after she asked her tourney will there be any problems with immigration her turn he said no you have a green card there will be authoritarian case law is the united states supreme court certain people versus late which recognize to recognize the extraordinary and severe impact of deportation and said we're not going wise i asked my attorney what's going to happen and i'm going to be in trouble if i plead guilty and the lawyer said no you're ok and that happened not at the peak of wait but in a subsequent proceeding here two subsequent it for the now you know i don't think that the court is required to follow what it so happened that it did and lead but i also don't think that the client is required to speak up and say you know what his when her in this case attorney just said there's not going to be a problem and if she speaks up the court likely tells her touch her attorney who represented and she talks her attorney and what is he going to tell her different than what he just told her prior to the  said you're you're ok you're not going to be deported and the court there found prejudice right and so it didn't say that the courts of management's feared any prejudice so the court there to this was the same attorney who represented her but during the deportation proceedings he never indicated that oh we you know we put up a defense to the crimes of moral turpitude or we move to cancel the removal proceedings and in fact it would even make twelve representing the people as you pointed out your honor this case all comes down to prejudice and the reason why that is is that the people are not contesting that the defendant established the first  upon her testimony of her attorney telling her that she would not face any deportation consequences or something along those lines but that amounted to deficient performance in the first prong script but that's not the extent of the court's analysis where the defendant is unable to meet her burden because there is no demonstration of prejudice in this case and how do we know that we know that based upon what the u s supreme court said in leet when we said that post hoc assertions of i would not have don't worry about it and this is all going by record don't worry about it it's just a formality and then the one at the judge didn't do anything in their case to ensure that the defendant understood the city the significance of the management this case as you recognize is completely different information they did not establish from the defense attorney from the public defender who represented her at the plea that he had said so that the again that absence of those additional facts her mat meant that she failed to meet her burden  which is exactly what the proper health here and we know that in addition based upon the valve as case because they'll those which was decided by the ownership or right before the judge made his ruling in this case specifically said that even when you have a failure of the attorney to provide this if the the requisite information to his client is required by video even when that happens the judge is giving of the one of eleven the one thirteen their shape in management is ability or the strong possibility based on the crimes of moral turpitude is irrelevant because the word vs made was a should versus could doesn't make a difference because from a prejudiced standpoint the admonitions by the judge telling the defendant there are potential was reading through the record was that the defendant when she was testifying via skype was saying that she was crying throughout the plea proceed and the judge was surprised at that he indicated that he didn't remember anything like that and unfortunately i haven't seen the t myself but i'm fairly certain that it doesn't reference any crime there so i can't believe that the judge would have ignored some sort of a word manifestation of the defendant surprise or distraught over this any more than any other d thought of pleading guilty and going to prison it's i don't know what else a judge would do the judge in this case in particular clearly and accurately fall of the law see if you'd said to manage the defendant in this way and he did and the no doubt that this was a fully knowing intelligently counsel is correct that under leave the defendant at this stage of the postman proceedings or does not have to show that she had a viable defense or was actually innocent we made it had been in the country for twenty years her childhood born here is still here was maybe seven or eight years old at the time but we know evidence on the record that she had any significant ties with poland and the other point that i would like to discuss in response is the significance of the mandatory versus the possible consequences or possible deportation video which rolled up but when the consequences are mandatory that's not fluid it's the numerated in the statute this aggravated felonies you must be deported you cannot try to cancel you