whether the drugs were affecting him simply asked this place yes no question and he said i'm not asking if you are under the influence of france or if you're taking any drugs but only if you are under the influence just such as you grieve that you don't know what is going on two doctors who examined him and there are also records showing from nine hundred ninety to his history of the traumatic attack that basically scarred my client for life and left him w regimen for a period of time his delusions and other symptoms were under control and he was able to function but when those drugs were either removed or changed he had left a waiting basically competent such that when he was examined a year prior to said to him i'm having change they're changing my medications and i'm confused about it and it's wrong medication i don't feel right and rather than pursuing that he centrally undertook what was a very arduous plea in this case but if you'll no so in a normal situation without being delusional and without having history of being incompetent the judge can rely on his observations and yes no answers to that extent but in a situation where the guy has told them that he's under the influence of  police and have a competency hearing and have an exam right then so there was no mental exam of my client other than the visits that he was having at the jail where the jail psych personnel were treating him and were noting that his various times that he was having hallucinations and delusions and they were decreasing for a period of time and then the district magistrate in his findings recommendations noted that three weeks prior to the change of plea a doctor noted or whoever saw have noted that he was doing pleas there's a notation that he has been missing pill call and it's unclear for how long he's been missing his nets but what the history shows is that when he doesn't take his medications he become psychotic and the lawyer had he him different medication and they were withdrawing that medication shortly after he showed star turn around some progress so what ended up happening is that the time he changed his plea he was either receiving very little or no medication and so he was therefore incompetent and unable to understand so unable to answer an intelligent plea and there are other it's your position i don't know if he had some of them and not others or how much it says he's been missing pill call and i imagine that a further investigation and further evidence could have shut down and possibly could still so how many days he was missing it so i imagine there are records in  jail as to when people are given their medications but even in the change of pleat you can see that there are the waste in contrast to his yes and no answers interestingly any time soon asked for clarification she says she can't afford a fine which presumably that my client can't afford either but he doesn't say anything he just saying yes no yes no and when the judge hears this four page convoluted factual basis which runs both defendants together and tells the whole long story of the crimes the judge never asks the defendant if you understand the factual basis or if he did that which is normally part of the change of police so there's not even an indication that he comprehends what they're saying he doesn't and he there are five months or four months prior to his arrest when he was not on drugs and therefore was quite psychotic so fast in that case are almost identical to the facts here and it was found there that the plea needed to be withdrawn saying i've read these medical records but he doesn't produce them and they seem to need to show that he's incompetent so that's you know not sufficient evidence for the judge but certainly put the judge on notice that he needed to hear more and the testimony of the first lawyer who was called basically testified that he wouldn't have taken his client's plea or allow this client to proceed if he thought that he was incompetent but he gives all these indications that he really raised the cruel and unusual punishment arguments are attacking his three strikes conviction sentence to review in the supreme court with just one never declared a procedural specifically because of that because of the unique circumstances of th and by doing that in the california rules of court rule twenty eight he felt that claim by implication by the fact that he didn't raise his direct appeal at that point was over so there was no further opportunity for the california supreme court point was not appropriate for her b s review and it should have been raised under the on direct appeal and that's exactly the circumstances that the supreme court in found to have resulted in a waiver of that particular claim because by the petitioner appellant failing to raise this plan in direct appeal he did not give the state a full and fair requires petitioners in the first instance to raise their planes on direct appeal properly to properly exhaust and that's not what the petitioner in this case did and that is why under that under a solv evidence that's presented in the hague the court can see that his delusions had returned very shortly after he was telling one of the therapists that he believed he was going to get out on march third when clearly he was never going to get out and he was extremely distraught