deliberation for this attempted murder conviction beyond a reasonable doubt and in this fight the differential standard to review this court has regarding these claims  reviewing this applies to jackson standard and they also apply framework within the california for evaluating whether sufficient evidence of premeditation deliberation that would be the andersen standard would have to look at planning motive or the method of attack that would support planning or motive in this particular case and i contend that the evidence is insufficient and there's no rational jury could find that there was evidence of planning that there was evidence that mr erickson had any motive or that the method of attack would support the inference that there was planning or somehow motive and  unhandsome it was subject to the the petitioner to life imprisonment as opposed to a term of years and this case the the evidence all the evidence presented to the jury suggests that this was a frenzied attack by the really asked of this this court review it under the jackson novo review i'm not at i'm not saying it is the de novo review normally associated with with this court but the jackson the noble review which which really look no rational jury could find proof beyond a reasonable doubt and the unreasonable application of facts that there really doesn't change that i'm asked under the the jackson standard what no standard review or the unreasonable application i contend are pretty much the same but i would concede the fact that this is a very deferential standard review but we're not sitting in the court of appeal's shoes doing the review there inferences against four in favor of the verdict and then ultimately comes down to whether this court would determine under the jackson standard that a rational jury could come to the same conclusion and and in fact my contention is that given the the evidence in this case that that that that there was no rational jury could not come to this conclusion and i think i want to go back to the second in terms of of the time issue i know that concerns the court but there's also evidence of mr harris and mental state the evidence of the drinking evidence of planning reflection motive and even a district court found that a court of appeal gone too far and some of the the inferences whether there was planning specifically that  there i contend that there is no other conclusion that this was a spontaneous eruption by mr harrison that he went to get the first weapon available yes he went through the kitchen but he got the weapon and the historical facts of what happened to look into whether it was sufficient to establish that premeditation in duration did occur that opinion is not objective leon reasonable for at least whe he had time it wasn't like in the heat of two people fighting and the just happens to be a knife this isn't what happened there was no argument the victim was on the patio comforting got a knife and he goes out onto the deck he stabs or saying it's going down his friends call him off and if there was any doubt at all that the state court of appeals decision is not objective appeals opinion was not objective we are in reasonable unless the court has any questions we would be willing to submit thank you thank you very much deliberation and the problem is that as i see the record in this case in the court of appeals decision is that it compressed and conflated the concepts of expressed intent to kill and premeditation deliberation and the fact is that  at the end of a long day of arguments arguments drinking his men it's diminished mental state which all came into evidence and all that undercuts the issue of planning the issue of motive well why then i mean and that's  really even the court of appeal said mode is really not a consideration in this case and then then with what we have left under the andersen test we have the issue of method of attack and the method of attack and that the stabbings on the top of the body and the and the nature of the attacks and numerous rooms all suggest a spontaneous reaction yes that was broken up by by friends and he came back but the issue is is that does that change the nature of the attack in this that term of the reflection my contention is that all the jury could have that could have done that that no rational jury should have done that thank you thank you thank you very much