you may proceed counsel system would qualify you for conviction correct so how is there a manifest injustice because he delayed and i'm not saying that he intentionally d why where is the manifest injustice is returned to is briefly state he's facing a prosecution under the former law of the law in existence of the time he was charged there any indication on the record that the state stated if the of these allowed withdraws guilty plea to be prosecuted under the law of or any indication that he would be sentenced in a different way and it just seems to me you're asking us to find a manifest in justice where it's not demonstrated in a justice would occur he'd be put back where he was which is facing prosecution apparently is acknowledging the state of the evidence that he would be guilty under that of the laws that existed at the time he entered into  that relevant and we need to know what the state would have done or should we just assume that the prosecutor prosecution would have continued as it had  the thirty day group that's not an error was significantly larger would have been significant than those within the three out wonder so every time we have a scientific advancement are we to look at statutes that were in place at the time prior to the zip pants and to say well now that statute is unconstitutional i wouldn't i wouldn't go so far say every time but in this circumstance you know the specific threshold which driver will be here and we know that prior statu to have rely on science declare certain statutes to see if they have previously declared constitutional i am unaware of whether those whether to a different you know that because in that case they rely on experts test saying we could not determine the level of t h c which somebody here now know guilty plea the finance arguments on appeal are essentially requesting the sport to reapply past common law ignore the general savings clause as well as our supreme court contrary to the finance arguments our supreme court has held that the was contrary to the manifest intent of the legislature the state disagrees as set forth and these to find out based on a base seven of the state's brief nowhere in the combination of circumstances out of which this problem arose  that the legislature was expressing its purpose the conduct which took place before the statutory change should no longer be criminal no thought of a general pardon for those who had committed the offense here involved can be distilled from the circumstances of this legislative change the case falls squarely seems to meaningful meaningfully distinguish this case here defendant entered his guilty plea knowingly intelligently and voluntarily subsequently the law changed prior to his sentencing yet there is the general savings cause in our supreme additionally fishel never argued for abatement of this prosecution rather fishel argued that when considering the serious doubt about his guilt following an act one of the public acts that we're discussing quote the ends of justice would be better served by allowing him to withdraw his guilty plea and submitting the case to trial and this is the line i want to ask you about he says at the very least the fact that driving with quote any amount close quote was no longer criminal would have provided fishel with a viable defense of file would that have come the end of the trial could that have come in a trial of the there's been a change in the law actually focused on that line as well your honor and upon doing some research i do not see how that would be come a viable defense because as your written thing at your prior questioning of public counsel he would be prosecuted under the old law i don't i'm not aware of any defense that because now there's a new law that says it was not is no longer criminal but that somehow retrospectively applies to the old case so i would say that would not be a proper defense and in regards to speculation is what the state would do i sins of the crime up top of my head but that seems to be a pretty good deal for someone who injured two people and cause another death so i'm sure there may do even be more serious sentencing implications for different if you did decide to withdraw this and go to trial so for that reason the state does not see how there was a manifest injustice that occurred so thirty no further question the state would cross this court to a one prosecutions and to preserve final judgments after a lot has changed in this case we're not asking for you they're not asking for payment of prosecution and i would also know that at the time the manifest injustice is not relevant what the sentencing implications are hungry man does not focus our focus should be on the fairness of mr officials believe what was the bottle votes that you were referring to in your itself and again face the rationale of fate no longer applies to the facts of this case simply because we now know that not all those with any amount of