say their brief they seem to suggest that it's not necessarily has to be completely directly antagonistic but if there is a significant disparity in the evidence that's presented against the presented against the codefendant it was witness testimony talking about a murder for hire and then there was a third offender who also testified against the defendant and you know in our supreme court reversed said seven should have been significant there was only one specific identifying features and test you correct so at trial over both attorneys objections of course made they were both have to come up show the tattoo to the complaining witness bad but at the same time the court found this tattoo evidence to be a significant piece of evidence in this case you commented on it yes that means your argument is he should raise that to this court correct and direct appeal if this court were to reject that argument is that something we can consider yes but i think it's   what our thinking might a bit about court yes ok i mean again this issue it was at issue from the very beginning it was a trial there was an objection and you have objection to child when we strip away all of the talk about whether pollack was always an effective or trial councils ineffectiveness and failing to raise various things what we have here is a defendant asking this court to find trial counsel ineffective for essentially codefendant objected to this consolidation and supported this motion the state argued some of the things that was discussed during the opening statements here today that the offense occurred at the same time on the same day the same location the same witnesses and there was no antagonistic defenses the defendant argued basically that it could have been a third person that had been implicated and home invasions with these two men before that man porter oh dad didn't even end up testifying and to defend this trial and i don't think that he was even mentioned one time throughout the trial the trial court ruled in the state's favor said they were not antagonistic defenses and thus ordered consolidation of these cases but the trial court even indicated a defense counsel it was willing to reconsider that word or should is not ineffective because the public counsel recognizes numerous things first this is a strategic choice not to file a motion to reconsider or if counsel were to go ahead and file a motion for severance but for the essentially been the same thing that they were in a better position before because the state moved to consolidate the cases the state then had to byrd and back time to demonstrate that consolidation was necessary at that time the defendant had a lower threshold to keep the case as separate and defended  jackson was on the panel as well i direct appeal the court considered the sufficiency of the evidence against the defendant against mr tompkins talked to have it and it was not something that was ever considered by this court in the evidence that implicated the defendant in this case rather the evidence demonstrated that the defendant worked for a moving company he was in the home where the guns where he met the stature of the fizzy the man who was in the moving company who was in the home who arguably had knowledge that there were weapons  defendant put guns into a green duffel bag he was later seen with a green duffel bag the offender was arrested for an unrelated armed robbery and he was found in possession of one of the stolen weapons moreover the defendant was his mother found  sent her home and contacted a school official who then notified police that there were weapons in her home this was that and said this court considered when i found that evidence was sufficient to find the defendant guilty on direct appeal no mention of the type to evidence really sound strategy even though counsel objected to this when the state moved to consolidate our view that there could be inconsistent offenses that didn't end up being the case essentially the defense by both defendants was that they couldn't make an eyewitness flagged and i don't see how raising this would have detracted from any of the other brief issues raised on appeal as to the evidence yes this court did find that it was the evidence was sufficient but