entered the record colloquy specifically stated that it was the agreement of the parties that the government would not oppose sentences running concurrently all cases there was prior to the plea agreement there was a writing side by the parties the pennsylvania superior court described because there is an additional term there's a th new or a plea agreement ok two months later believe this is what's called this is what's called a hybrid well the what they claim is a hybrid is that there was no there was no agreement as to sense itself and one of the places where i think the main place where the lower courts the other courts got off the track is we were never arguing and we're not arguing today that the sentencing judge is obligated to  for court talks about a hybrid agreement being one where there's a recommendation but there is no specific agreement that the court has to impose a certain sense  when mr pitcher was sentenced by the court the judge started off by saying he was going honor the agreement between the parties then he started giving mr bitch a can consecutive sentences i stopped the judge and said wait a nd judge it's true that the government attorneys that specifically say no judge we oppose the census running concurrently but she said was the agreement that the senses run concurrently so she basically making for sunday and let me see if i can find the exact wording here and i learned from aisha number it said the color of agrees to run cases concurrent to one another and it refers to the other information number and the nd information  and then at the time sentence the sentencing the judge began by writing certain sentences consecutive happened is reasonable i understand that but the next step in here which i find a great deal of trouble in saying that i i'm reasonable well judge again i would go to set develop and set the bellows the government attorney agreed not to make a nd sentencing recommendation when they didn't abide by that sensing recommendation your supreme court said that's a violation of the misuse of the pows rights in our present case the grima record was that the government would make a recommendation to very sensitive senses concurrently the government disavowed the agreement at the time the sentences were imposed and i don't see we basically notice the facts here right i would agree with that judge a written plea agreement is that has it been said on the record and in the transcripts the a b a said what she said about not objecting to that it was what it was it's exactly what it was the camos would not object to concurrent sentences with in each information as the court had to certainly suggested and i understand there's two informations here the written plea agreement clearly says that information one would be concurrent to information two but said nothing about the internal counts to each of those information that was left to the court's discretion subject to the  objecting to concurrent time and cowell submit that that's exactly what happened and the commonwealth did not breach its agreement in any way with the defendant at the time of sentencing al concurrently to each other as indicated in the written plea agreement and the commonwealth did not object or make any recommendation other than a standard sentence for each to say the counsel to say that there was no agreement the commonwealth promise was understand a point about say well we didn't object to it but wasn't the trial court left with the with the impression that there was no agreement here i would i would disagree on the green that was that each case would run concurrent to the other one but within each case the court was free to stand as it saw fit and the commonwealth was not going to object or make any kind of come up does not see what happened at sensing as inconsistent with the statements and the written agreement presented at the g o p colloquy nor does it tom all see that as a breach of the agreement or disavowed as the what inducements or what we really want into the defendant's decision to plead guilty in this case obviously there were statements made on the record at the time of the plea but nothing after that from what com also recollection is that the defendant specifically read should run concurrent secondly the government attorney if the type of the sentencing said that specific words were uttered i spoke to attorney speranza who st of all was assigned to say that examining the cases where there's a determination of whether to interpretation of federal constitutional law was reasonable or not generally i haven't seen any cases where they apply to a situation where there's a clear was a clear statement lossage assent to balance normally those case apply to a situation where there's there's a balancing of factors and so was disagreeing with how the factors were guess how do you respond to that well i respond by to by saying that it was specifically set out during the plea colloquy that that was that was an important matter that that was what we were relying on it was our understanding of what the agreement was but is there anything in the record that shows this induced your client to to to accept the plea as stated well i would say though looking at the