no that's not exactly correct ok tom the claim is ineffective assistance of counsel with ineffective assistance be the failure to tell client prior to trial that there was a mandatory twenty well actually let me back up a second i a i'm not one hundred percent sure event but i i believe there's no claim that it wasn't all right so so he had two prior convictions before he went to trial and th get another twenty back right right place good he gets sick he can get up to sixty right how can he claim prejudice when he's facing sixty and he rejects twenty seven and he actually in reality he got fifty prejudiced because one of the things that you have to look at this from the standpoint of what you defend you know when you can didn't go when he turned down the twenty seven year of what he didn't know is that he's risking not just twenty and sixty he's risking forty five to life but he got fifty three so what is really risking is the sixty he's risking sixty for twenty seven he was willing to go to trial and be subjecting himself to sixty years in the penitentiary but instead that i mean he did go to trial he rejected the twenty seven no one was told well he could get sixty so how is there prejudice when he rolled the dice when he knew he could get sixty and he rejected the twenty seven  said i'm going to try well when you rejected the twenty seven he didn't know that the minimum was forty five the maximum was was life and under heo the disparity between what the offer was and what the potential sentence was upon a conviction is relevant in determining whether there was prejudice in this context but under heel is it also required that the showing of purchase must in compass more than a defendant's own subjective self serving testimony the judge to decide whether he establishes prejudice under strict when they're not what do we have here that's more than a subjective self serving statement well here i think you're hearing say that he you would have accepted that i don't think there are any magic words acquire i don't think so would the right doesn't say that cooper doesn't say that hail doesn't say that so i don't think it says that you have to use any particular magic words i think at this stage the question is whether it's arguably prejudicial and my question is how does yet amount to anything more than a subjective self serving statement well in this context there are really only two people that are likely to know what transpired between shares one on employer i q k so the petition itself essentially alleges that mr walker would be able to testify if he didn't know about the mandatory going to answer that it says if you keep in mind the disparity the difference between twenty seven years and forty five to life he thinks it difference between two i said years in twenty six he's twenty years old and even a twenty year old can appreciate the difference between getting out of prison when he's forty seven and getting out no really no younger than sixty five and possibly never so i think it's arguably prejudicial but it's arguable that if he were to testify the offer they didn't say what the offer was when they went to trial there was only one pound standing felony murder right ok so how does the judge how does the judge approve of a twenty seven year well and even even at that point if you'd said well wait a minute no i've changed my mind even then he doesn't know what happens if this record discloses that you know it is not uncommon in fact i think it's almost wired that way to judge a range the defendant or when they appear for the first time on court that they're supposed to be told you know the characters and the possible penalties would it would it make a difference if in this case the record discloses that he was  that's a big difference i agree with you i think that and i think norm is difference but and i think that's i'm sorry to cut you off you know i just don't know if if he knows about sixty and then the end he gets fifty three i'm not prejudice or one of the things around us to look at is whether or not defendants rather not the record shows that it was not rational for defendant to reject this alleged clear offer that's not what the standard here is the standard is whether or not there was a reasonable at one time x x x the point of sentencing that the court says i'm here by sentencing you to i don't recall but the murder was off the top of my head if it was thirty years or what have you because there was a number of reset in sync but then he also said and based the firearm enhanced man i'm sensing you to this many years but prior to that there was nothing on the record at arraignment or anything throughout the at that even at the time of sentencing the state did not the state nor the defense nor the judge who were looking at this it was at the time the judge actually pronounced sentence is when the number was brought out but respective of that your honors the standard was say i would have taken the plea and in fact what defendant does say in his petition is had he known about the hiraman hansen's he would have asked for or he could have asked for a bifurcated hearing now we all know that that's not a legal possibility was going to take the plea but even if we want to assume liberally construe his statement that i would have taken the plea as you anderson pointed out nowhere in his petition does defendant say i didn't know what the minimum was but he says i didn't  know the potential penalties that his claim so defendant clearly was aware that he faced upwards to a sixty year potential sentence allegedly the opera with twenty seven years twenty seven years is well below the counsel look for witnesses this trial counsel was the one that was asking for continue with his order in order to locate these witnesses and the defense filed with a self defense which we know is not available once the state of acted and the felony murder count alone so clearly this defined it had no desire to keep guilty and know that your honour's have also made reference to the penance self serving statement alone is not enough to seek to establish prejudice under strickland there needs to be something more and there's no affidavit that's attached that establishes anything more there's nothing on the right or the only thing your honour's have to look at is a fused words independence petition say my plea was not or my excuse me him erroneous advice about what the murder potential or what the sentencing excuse me what the sentencing range was for the murder nor does he lie chap your honor if there's no questions about the section thank you first counsel for the state and he accurately quoted what the standard is for mail that it has to be a reasonable probability that the i get is forty five that sounds a lot better to me now than before when i thought it was twenty to sixty and without going too far afield here i just this is in this case isn't plead guilty based on this advice from counsel about the consequences of being found guilty proceeding the trial in brown  so i would just say that that applies analogously here but moving on i think the business about the defendant including his pro se pleading that he would have this high for katie proceed range but they did know he was risking six years but again that what what he what matters is what he didn't know but whether that he knew it was sixty years is really not relevant what matters is that he didn't know