about that's a very different situation that's the type of ambiguity that we're talking about this is not a big this this is clear the state makes the argument that mr berry has abandoned  the record multiple times to talk things over with very person he's claiming has not represented them properly and this is the type of situation that frankel is designed to provide i would know that when mr perry explained that he did not want trouble we he did so specifically on the basis that he was frustrated attorney and said i feel like i'm alone this is after coming back on the record again consultation he says i feel like i'm alone my count that means there were two status hearings where mr lewis was on the case before that last status the day before that's simply not represented in the record we don't have a record of how well or how often quality of the agreements and the potential wifely hood that this was something that would be very favorite be a very the a favorable this position to the defendant in terms of this really is this is the st time we're hearing about what happened dissatisfied or is that something that you have to inquire into i think that i know i would have been thinking about you bringing it up now yet of a number of charges were dismissed that had you been convicted on including a burglary identity theft subsequent to earlier convictions you'd be getting a lot heavier time than what you see and you got it to be returned to the court because of failure to comply with the certificate and now we're hearing about this and you're not very articulate about this though the magic words spoken by the attorney absolutely a relevant consideration power you know is this credible and i think that all of us whether this frivolous argument or strictly i think it's clear from the record that the trial court was frustrated that very often conferences occurred in a conference room after you get the status here and then another piece stepped up and handle whatever the next day this year was so there are often was a time that's where a lot of conversations i want to another hearing and that's where the i get that great we know that you want another hearing but if you want another hearing and that's where he said again the repercussions of what we're having if you want defending acknowledges he said i understand this and that's where he moved to that's where he moved to consider his motion to reconsider at this point this is where he abandons his crank and courier any affect the sister council say my client i think he's got something to say but it's kind of mixing up some so michoud and mention that the trial court might want to consider current i mean he apparently understood that there was a more than a degree of unhappiness with his effectiveness in the sense that he said you know the guy said he hasn't talked me t even exploiting this notion let alone what i want to complain about that happened to the boy or your honor i would just say that is more likely you know during this actual hearing when they went to the back he you know he did i think when the actual poor service was you know part of that too but you know when just because saying you know he might have been there might be a wrinkle here doesn't necessarily mean that  hearing your honor it's just defending could have been more dissatisfied with his service you know there's there's numerous factors that well obviously don't know about but  practically speaking if you want to you know i think if it be practically speaking if you know they were to go with this motion to you know like what do you really want to do you know can a defendant file a motion to withdraw fleet guilty based in part on ineffective assistance of counsel yes you're right so you really don't have to do one or the other right correct but the the nd day once he did file his motion once he decided and he understood this point once you decide to go forward his most reconsider there is just there's no point of even conducting and craig going forward do you think it's reasonable to infer that basically the truck or kind of set him down on the ineffective assistance in terms of saying you can't have your cake and eat it too and saying when he started talking about his dissatisfaction something along the lines of you're on your own agenda let's get back to what we're here for i mean i don't think i don't think he was trying to do that to defend it i think you're just trying to ascertain what the defendant really wanted  he like he said you know i really like he said i'm just trying to focus on what you really want and if the defendant wanted to continue with this in effect citizens as he could out but he ultimately decided to go with the motion to reconsider and we don't know what they said right your honor and i want to i agree with that but and then even after speaking with him he said this is you know i want to go with this motion to reconsider and going back to what what he was never going to have a trial the game for he was going to build there he would the actual trial was supposed to be set a week after and then a couple the week before that's when he was actually that's when he played bill there was no d v d for so i would say that defendant said he had poor service and felt like he was there alone and had been top to me aren't those things that suggest that that would have been appropriate your honor if that were to happen i mean that's what he claims yes but the trial court stated you know you know there was no reason there he thought it was or no motion for a new trial there's just you know i don't understand i don't understand how the defendant can