that factor however i was not indicative of fitness on the contrary it shows that mr ahern was unfit first up early on in the proceedings he rejected a plea offer from the state and did against counsel's  later he also testified also against counsel's advice and somewhat strangely he said on the record that it was not against counsel's advice you know counsel had just said that it was on the show that he was either unaware of what counsel's and yet no one asked him to make sure he truly understood this or confirmed his understanding and he went ahead and testified as again shows he didn't truly understand the nature of the proceedings and that he was actually interfering with his own defense by going against counsel once again now he also said once he did testify that he suffered from bipolar as well as schizophrenia two clearly very serious disorders that would have a great deal of impact on his ability to assist in his own defense or understand the coherent statement sentencing showing some remorse for the crime however on balance when you look at the fact that mr burns going against counsel's advice at every turn the fact that he stated from the witness stand and he suffered from two very serious mental disorders prior psychiatric diagnoses and he was at one time evidently prescribed psychotropic medication and if yes i makes it appear that he probably was not taking it at the time of trial and finally we have his mother's extensive testimony  sentencing indicating that he had some head for a long battle with mental illness and explicitly asking the trial court to give this some consideration in stating that when he knew it was not for the incarceration but helpful for his mental hospitalizations as well as psychiatric diagnoses indicating that there's actually less support for this claim in light of all this trouble had a responsibility to look at the totality of the circumstances here and conduct a fitness hearing record your honor i needed a point to conflicts attorney in this case because i'm not allowed to argue my own ineffectiveness now if that were not enough the trial for itself indicated th with counsel i'm not going to listen to that right now when you have to do what you want me to consider kind of ineffectiveness at this point you know where you claimed you have it writing you need to file them within thirty days and you need to send me a copy now simply for this the co seen this court reversed mr kerns convictions with respect to the fitness argument in a manner for a new trial or in the alternative a retrospective fitness or with respect to the second argument we miss in this court remain the cause for an appropriate very self serving statement that he's had problems with schizophrenia bipolar anger problems as just a schmidt commented the statement is you know shows these clearly where of the situation clearly he's in the moment and he knows counsel's claim when he when she first raise the issue to the possible mental issues the judge said that things have come to her attention that they require a shift in the theory of defen and that that they may be attacking a mental state issue in this trial and clearly your honour's this is evidence that she was something a put together some kind of affirmative defense possibly insanity i don't know if it was right time for it but that's neither here or there  the lengthy discussions with the fan and she she claimed nothing as regards is his fitness to stand trial moving out of the fitness to be sentenced fashion a portion of this  had an ample opportunity to to have a hearing and set forth his claims but you fail have he has been indicating that he didn't understand that it was against counsel's advice that he not testify we have been not understanding the ramifications of testifying we have a lot of indications in the record he did not understand the precise nature of the proceedings against him just the defense or something along those lines it's true that it does seem to speak specifically to the nature of the defense but it's also showing that something just happened in the courtroom no less makes council think that something's going on becomes aware of i'm going to find out it has to act and that's why the state's additional argument that it's all the stuff coming out of sentencing means that we don't have to worry about the trial is incorrect at any time soon find out arises  from it point out the court had a great opportunity as is always required under the case law to require the issue and resolve it at the time it became aware of it and didn't do so in this case and there's no legal basis for excusing that have the first thing happen during the trial asked to a fire counsel the court says it's the ninth inning of the game here we're not going to stop i think though the program but then when we get to the point of a post trial when defense counsel specifically telling the court in on this case anymore because i can argue my own ineffectiveness i don't think it could be much clearer that there is an issue that affected this being a client in the trial court's own comments show that you understood this when it said that i know you're upset with coun