to get the documents problem why should we not construe the defendant's actions here similarly for a few reasons first prior to johnson and then does the law and the state was would be based on the timeline for filing a certification if you applied it back to the date the reason hearing was files and you know gave ninety days for the surf attention at six months to that and under that analysis filed and in fact in johnson the state conceded and the supreme court agreed that a literal reading of the statute does not provide a deadline for filing a post conviction titian window pilatus filed and finding that that would a timeline for filing i don't think that he could be determined to be claimed he can sorry here he wasn't even negligent much less reckless he did what he could he wrote to this court requesting after update so that all knowing that his petition for rehearing had been tonight he had no way of knowing he did not know that this timeline whatever it might be considering that the op didn't provide him at that time strategy that needed witnesses were impeachable or were bad witnesses or he didn't want to suborn perjury but the court sat there until counsel is sitting over there in that chair being questioned i don't know and the ju that there was often drug paraphernalia and weapons found in my backyard that because people would walk through and throw things over that would have provided the answer to that now coburn also severed she says she talked and given that there is nothing in the record here to show that counsel even talked to these people you know or that counsel made a choice not to call her and give it like i said earlier that we have to assume the truth of these things the fact that she would have an answer the you know the where the guys come from issue and also would have provided you know  for a moment this time this is not an issue let's talk about the ineffective assistance claim as i talked to your opponent about this worked at one point said i'm excellent job and he was not objectively unreasonable so i think she although sitting in another bench or hearing after hearing back and seeing the entire trial there was no objective only on reasonable how probably going to stage three i mean how do you know the trial comes with a look at these two people when they were look like heroin addicts surveyed had horrible prior criminal histories or something to that effect and he's like i'm up with these people and well effective defense counsel is charged with investigating the defense and not even attempting to contact cooke that was a definite failure on  because they would have testified to facts that supported the argument that the cops were lying and would have you know one of the m to trial to refute the defense was that it just you know makes no sense that officers would just walk up and take something well enough but if you've got two witnesses who say that's exactly what happened or could provide a little bit more background information about that situation that would definitely help the defense here and you know until one of the trying to know now that you know very recent events and things that are in the news make it kind of the less outrageous to consider that something like this might have happened given things that are important in the news court changing its mind and counsel asserted that there was the court to review the whole record and change that might change its might well the court wasn't able to do that we're not arguing that it is wrong for the court to change its mind we're arguing that the court