counsel in this situation did not have the information to provide the first part of that analysis of the balancing approach as encouraging if that situation with the attorney didn't just advise my client record of it shortly after that court date on the very next court date is where attorney john carroll filed his appearance mr gill never did fall and withdraw but he did not appear after that court date on any evidence that mr carroll ever went to the state and saw the conditions even if you went and an aunt's prejudice wrong here then on the supreme court cases talk about is there where the state makes an offer and the defendant turns the offer down based on false or erroneous information where or how do you hang your hat on that portion of the argument in other words with where's any indication this record that this state  possibility of one the court in that case said there the defense isn't required to show prejudice because there was no real offer to accept or to reject in that situation just as in our case here there was no offer to accept or  brown the people versus church where they said it was your prejudice where the defendant is always speculating that he hadn't been accurately advised he might have attempted to go shoot a better deal on the situation it wasn't a matter of him draft which brings me to right in the record is a one hundred list of problems with the state's case i think that if you look at where the state was there at terms of why evidence they had to go forward in this case i think that if you counteroffer the state to lower it now there's no guarantee the state would have accepted it brown said but there's always a degree of speculation this strickland requires speculation on your honor on the second prong on point time if my if the there's a good chance of trickery with the right the judge did indicated he was considering probation for him so forth so i think that his admission to his client was that far off base in terms of what would happen if the law says he believed there's no doubt the mistake was made here by both the court and his attorney i don't think that there's much doubt that the state led him to his belief that he should take a trial in this particular case the only the only speculation really is whether or don't know that it requires some speculation in all three cases to determine that of course you do raise a good points and that this is different there wasn't that offer made but i think brown does make clear that that speculation is exactly that speculation but the facts do suggest that this is a case that would have been right for negotiations if the all of the known and mr barrow did testify that he'd known face in two decades away from his family that to defend it was adamant that he was not guilty and wanted to trial i don't think there's anything in the record or if you if i'm mistaken peace plan out to me where the defendant says he didn't want to enter into any  presentations in court including findings after and being found guilty did no one ever tells this man that he is going to be sentenced on counts one through five he's found guilty when he is found guilty to a mandatory consecutive department of place what was said was in the present or if it was all very very speculative in terms of of that and said he wanted best a geisha in my office could handle it i passed it on which would which i think is appropriate his office really couldn't handle it but there of the facts surrounding it back up everything else he said about what he was told he was told to go for probation that he would get it because of the background all these other testimonies crawford in the record based on