The APPELLAtE count Stated tha t : perfected i m peach me was Unlikel Counsel could hnve nA1e= Reyarbg Av The Eviken agReemend hearing, The Record was clarificd as To The Possible he had no obocunentary Evifence of Aw egleemert

Isit it the Jol o f &he Attoney T0 1. defense Counsel Should have TAK Fully impeach A witness, determive whether the Prosecyton or Id:fiowal ackou rod The SAmt Asa Anita Rod nio ve2 wo JOnWOo WMs MiStAKeN. 1 hen Notes Atter she iwtenviewet Ma Norwoid. Ma. E fler Testifid That he Recievce hose wotes and they stutes thing mas Rolkifue 2 The SAme NLd iw for of The Juel. TO perfect the impeach roll he hAd 2O TO WAS CALl ROL R:fUEZE TO The Stand and e teamine whether The PrOSECutOr OR DORwd DAS misAKEN. IN Stead he was mone WORRY qsont Causin - hat T he deferdant statel APPELLATE Count 4 Failed TO Show An/ suh Cows: lemadicr wAs oftered iN Exchange Speculative. stating ASA about The whats Specula tive 1 That, is it fouR Ondenstardiey That i0 Fronl ofrke Juey fou'ee Not going ro be Reterred to investigation for Fodenal charges i N mas BodRigue has comitte pro secufion mis condoct The heariny oN April 28,2016 ovter mas Rodrigue anam:tted OALL Tht would Nit MR. Wotnwoj goin TO be Lefened TO wvesti gaiop for federal Cherges if He cooperate and testi.f At The Same hearig mAs Rodniguez restify hat he Nonwood wan' beng offered aryrhig For his taslimiet The state can't have i t beih wys whick is RUth?

Was the defendant's counsel ineffective for failing to properly investigate and present evidence of a plea agreement?