see me please support to meet your goal jury trial he's convicted is the traffic court required to read mohnish before sentencing him that he's entitled to counsel even though he's already elected to go pro se my understanding you i've looked them over and they are without merit and i needed form for that and thus i really should withdraw as to your answer but that doesn't mean i will continue as counsel if you tell me to or i won't i'll be stachel up about being required to stay on right but i would agree with that but in those circumstances if you are standing mr crawford position and mr probert came out and said that the reason why he had no objection indication in the record that mr crawford would it shows and proceed pro se had counsel not moved to drop and i believe the answer that question is no there is nothing there that attorney after looking at the merits of his arguments as a moving withdraw because i can't in good faith go forward with the argument so he's had a claims into a proper legal form and resistless claims to the court that is what a defendant is a title to by way of appointment of counsel and a post conviction hearing proceeding he is not entitled to the same type of defense that is guaranteed by the constitution to a general defended in a criminal trial so with this understanding you know i think it's mark's different from what the defendant is now arguing on appeal he wasn't padded to by way of representation he suggested home had he received a bit of counsel on his state's three proceeding the council could have presented a titian or supplemental claims to the best possible light and question witnesses to elicit testimony that  desirable from the perspective of the legal profession that may be true but that's not the legal standard that's not what did the defendant is entitled to by way of legal representation under the post conviction hearing act that not only may be true in this are you asking me judge whether or not i feel that counsel could a bit of assistance to this defendant in all i'm going back one step before that the trial judge himself said i got some concerns about this so i'm going to answer their stay yes is concerned is what is th we have at the trial court really thought that appointed counsel is going to be necessary for the court to appreciate the legal arguments that it wanted to undertake it states through proceedings at the point counsel is my belief the court didn't do so so it must not of thought it was requirement it must have thought that it could handle that and all unto itself and that in order to clarify the application of the flu or whatever that cases it probably need some additional evidence or a fact that would be my guess from my reading of the record i might even hope against hope that he would get some assistance from from the state that result well i think the court was of the mind in the court repeatedly stated fact you know and i think thats it in this particular essence this defendant is asking this court to overrule a significant amount of president president and to really expand the rights of the defendant significantly  already cited would all be overturned by ruling in his favor and in addition to that really expanded right but one of the points it is this depended his asking that it's be the court's duty to sue a spontaneous appoint this  like his options doesn't mean that he it does not knowingly weighed them or choose one over the other his options were a or b and he made out of it happy with either but i'd that doesn't mean that he was forced into making a decision  you know to choose a over pete he had it the wherewithal to keep counsel present and make the arguments himself he previously filed a motion prohibiting his counsel for making amendments or changes to his post conviction petition so you know he's clearly already interfering with his counsel's right to formulate his issues in a legal standard which was counsel's duty under the act so one i don't states the level to which counsel is and he had that representation and had he even had appointed counsel i don't know that counsel would have been required to undergo that type of examination and he's now suggesting he would have benefited from  might have been different had this defendant asked for appointed counsel and given the trial court reasons as to why he would like that counsel reappointed he did not and having field to do so you know i  issue and should not be a tad up to it there ought to be an opportunity for the trial court to address this issue and determine and make a record as to whether or not to try to court to use it should reappoint the same counsel that was previously request was never made by the depended in the trial court was never given the opportunity to entertain that unless this court wants to get into a constant cycle of well i don't like this guy he's not going to read you know he's not going to support me in my stage three