and i will keep my eye on a time before i begin to talk about the substantive part of my argument in preparation and i realize that i had inadvertently raised an issue that is beyond the scope of the sea away that i was  granted and that's the sixty some part of my claim that has to do with the failure of counsel to file an appeal on behalf of mr laval i did not intend to include any  when his lawyer told him that the jury was going to convict him because he was black because the alleged victims in a case for why it didn't matter if he had a defense under the hill case first we look to whether the lawyer was acting outside of strickland and his conduct with respect to the client in clearly it would be inappropriate for a lawyer to ever tell a client that it didn't matter if he had a defense or not in going to trial this is similar to the newness case the problem is that mr laval lost the right to decide hi own fate when his lawyer told him it just doesn't matter you don't have a defense according to mr le false affidavit which appears in the record at seventy seven seventy eight which is the only evidence that's been presented on this particular is both an unreasonable application of the facts and reasonable determination of the facts as presented and the only statement that the nevada supreme court makes on this issue is that the records revealed the defendant was not coerced and that's on page eighty eight of the record and if you look to the state court the trial court just says and they simply say the plea was voluntarily entered neither of the courts addressed the specific raised by mr the ball in his affidavit that my lawyer told me i didn't have it didn't matter if i had a defense i couldn't go to trial because i was black and the victims were white they simply didn't look at it they ignore the fact completely and they did not provide mr laval with a hearing to look further into th however if you look at the big picture of what happened it really isn't a deal at all and there was no reason for mr laval to plead guilty in this case he had already been convicted in the other case the sentence that he received on that case was five to five life sentences his parole eligibility of sixty years and that sixty calendar years he would have to do every day of that and make every girl born to be eligible he received life without the possibility of parole essentially in the other case so there was no reason for him to not contest what was going on i mean yeah he could have gotten more time if he went to trial but he could only serve so much time he's only got one  and so there were things that he had t admit guilt in this case and he had other issues that were raised in the state post conviction that were not appropriately raised since he pled guilty but he certainly had plenty things that he was complaining about that had already we're going to get a million dollars but we're talking about is what his lawyer in inviting him about the we told him he didn't have a defense and this was his only option and i do not believe that those questions really get to with respect to mr laval's claim that his his guilty plea was somehow involuntary because of the actions of counsel before you can even get to the two prongs of strickland before you can even address counsel's performance you really even have to believe the allegation in the first place and it's true that the state court did not express fully addressed the claim with respect to what his counsel told him however they did address his claim on the merits and reach a decision and in doing so this court can certainly law the united states supreme court once that first of all this court as you know doesn't make those credibility determinations but they also said that failure to grant relief was tantamount to an express finding against the he did sign the plea agreement and then during his is pretty canned with that arraignment the court asked him and he agreed that he read the plea agreement you understood the plea agreement signed the plea agreement and i thought it was in his best barrier you know to claim otherwise now ten eleven months down the line and i'd suggest that if all it takes two to overcome that formidable barriers for a convicted person to simply say my plea was involuntary because then fill in ineffective assistance incompetence whatever that's all it takes in effect you really have no barrier at all it's certainly not a formidable barrier there's got to be something else then of course and looking at whatever that something else may be this court you know is entitle to and should look at at all the surrounding circumstances and i think if you do that in this case that also kind of  like he did in the companion case and he certainly would have spent the rest of his life in prison as a result of this there's a great deal that he agreed to he's looking at life with the possibility that possibility so i think that goes one to the you know the prejudiced prong where you know it's unlikely that he would not have pled guilty otherwise he was going to plead the allegations themselves are not credible to even if you were to believe them counsel isn't has not performed below in an objective standard of reasonable notice and three that there was no prejudice involved whatsoever i just have one point and that is that the nevada supreme court is not a fact finding body and for in order for them to make the determination that they did given and the allegations made by mr hall the court had to make a a hearing and that the court really thank you thank you i just want to say at that time a lot of discussion about lawyers professionalism the client out but it's nice to see that it has done so