post conviction counsel was unreasonable in failing to amend brayley's post conviction petition to skim backplane at the evidence hearing hearing appellate counsel testified that after reading the direct appeal record in this case he identified nine potential issues three involved syncing five involved ineffective assistance of trial counsel and one involved a twelve dollar and fifty cent overcharge on the fines and fees order he also said however that he told greatly that the only viable issue that could be raised by direct appeal claim and to start considering whether it was invaded what he said specifically was he filed a motion to dismiss my appeal under the guise that it was my can say when actually i wanted him to raise any available issues or any issues that were available and that's not totally different from how well at the hearing your client basically conceded that he did tell him to dismiss it right he did concede yes ok and that's how you come up with the suggestion that are you asking you to meet the petition to the proof i mean this is an interesting concept one that i've never really seen exercise or yeah i don't know that he had to put it in the great idea he could have asked to make an oral that there is no obligation on his conviction post conviction counsel to pursue claims that were not initially made i think it's closely related to the claim that if we find that it's related his petition showed he wanted to challenge his sentence so for that reason the counsel normally not home through the record in this instance it was essential to state his plea and i would say here where it's abundantly clear that bradley wanted to challenge media which is appeal is dismissed and i'm guess i'm having a little trouble with that assertion because if you say that he dismissed it without asking my permission or without my consent i'm having difficulty this invited airplane and the reply brief and i actually looked at what he said i don't think it's that different he filed a motion to dismiss under the guise that it was my wish to do so and i actually wanted him to raise claims that the evidence hearing hearing he said you can't do too much for me so let's leave it alone i wanted to dismiss it if you can't do anything for you might as well go ahead and dismiss it i think it's similar to a post conviction petitioner sitting the gist of what they know and then once you flesh it out at the hearing it became a little more clear and of course he didn't identify really claim process i think it i mean it helps to i think it kind of is the same thing that's my position he didn't care about the twelve dollars fifty cents he wants to raise his trial issues and when counsel told him couldn't do it he said go ahead and   for him just allow you to believe that he could get a higher sentence and then forfeit those issues which is what happened was deficient what about opposing counsel's representation that there still is the potential for giving instead of the concurrent sentences consecutive sentence well two things first of all a college counsel himself never testified to that so i'm not sure that's what his concern was but if it was i would say it sentencing hearing he could have he could make that thank you but there has never been any allegation that there was but since the trial court did not make that finding at the first hearing to suddenly impose consecutive sentences would be a strong indication of judicial and victimise which is what the but even if it could even if the court could get away with that the risk of that happening was almost nonexistent in this case of to allow that to happen because the trial court said the minimum even might have some merit in this case so i don't think it would have happened this is where counsel that these records you have to raise about brecht appeal or else risk for future i certainly know that at the time that appellate counsel spoke to rightly there certainly were many cases where claims were dismissed and deferred for post conviction twenty seven year old case thirty three is not universal but even accepting that as a true basis for counsel to make a statement about generally this is what you need to do because generally you also need to risk forfeiture so i don't think it's a a evidence hearing hearing are still prejudice from the public counsel's advice importantly in this context prejudice is not measured by what the appeal have been successful it's measured by has the defendant shown that but for the deficiency of his is well aware defendants are in targets reasonable levels of assistance when it comes mission titian's of the purpose of acquiring post mission counsel to go through the rule of six if you want to see this ensure that counsel shapes the claims in a way th he didn't cause this error that he you know it's really we're going to consider it is it the same or similar enough to his original claim in his original claim was that i was told no i was argument have gone before the court at that time but instead he decided to misstate what happened in this case and pledge this comment by his attorney and then up until the point in which the evidence you're hearing is occurring he was testifying up to the end of the here and he was still maintaining that until the end and would like to know this commission counsel did amend to state other ineffective assistance claims that were dismissed before the hearing all those claims have been dismissed i need to get my client out of here because he's just misstated something through out the entire time that he filed this petition up contention that when we use the record it seems that the council was also just considering that and in this case had received a lenient sentence for the crimes he committed to class x felonies which only received eighteen years of actual prison time i think contention ultimately they did agree it was clear in the post conviction protection that riley wanted to dismiss or that really wanted to challenge the last of his appeal that's a fundamental right so it was incumbent in this case i didn't post conviction counsel this is his last chance to get back his appeal to have been i'm in the position since it was closely related to that claim and i would say invited air is typically found when a defendant proceeds in one proceeding in one manner and then goes to the next proceeding the example would be the carter case cited in the state's brief for the defendant did not want an involuntary manslaughter instruction at trial and then on appeal he said the trial court should have given that scene a spontaneous that's not what occurred here this is all  it's not a play here and i believe the case with the state to say to me didn't say i think it's cain where they think they're referencing that invited there has been found in p c petitions that was actually a two fourteen zero one petition you don't get appointed counsel in those claims so what you put in your petition stands post conviction hearing out you get counsel specifically to amend your petition to state what is necessary so that would be the difference fair i touched on this a bit already so i'll be brief when you have lost an appeal you don't measure by the successfulness of the claims that could have been raised in fact the united states i'm sorry the illinois supreme court in edwards specifically reversed a trial court's decision because it had found that the claims respected than it would not have been successful and we're not arguing per se prejudice we are arguing that prejudice occurs because he would not have dismissed his appeal but for this base and then the final  thing every time that the appellate counsel spoke he certainly didn't say about white about the things of ineffective assistance of counsel he certainly said it was based on his review of this record but he also followed it up every time by saying because there has to be a record strategy and in many cases such as simpson the illinois supreme court the court said when you cannot envision a strategic purpose for a claim you don't have to develop a record in that regard so if it were his he had said these were based on new evidence needed to be a statement like an example would be counsel should have filed a different motion to suppress and needed to know different things like why did the police arrest him that kind of stuff that's automatically proper for post conviction protection but when it's just strategy but the claim