says that mr ray as for mirrors did not raise certain issues in the trial court the problem is he did raise issues no one was listening in this case mr ramirez was denied affective assistance of counsel this is not a case in which  was not allowed to be effective because of the court's insistence on going to trial it was almost impossible for his attorney to prepare for trial so when he convinced m a plea agreement which was not an easy task took him two days to do it when he when he finally convinced him he probably felt that he had done a favor for mr america's because he got sixteen years instead of thirty four years but sixteen years when you're sixty two years old or not in good health is pretty much a life sentence anyway the sack has he was rushed into things was once again articulated when the second attorney was appointed after mr ramirez wrote to the court and said he was unhappy with the court once again said because the attorney could not be prepared within six weeks that mr ramirez needed to get a different attorney and mr ramirez begged the court not to substitute the attorney he said i have all the time in the world i'm not going anywhere and the court tonight and mr ramirez once again articulated the grounds for his motion to withdraw the plea by saying i'm getting messed around here you keep pushing me through this your honor a third attorney was appointed and he didn't understand mr ramirez this case and so finally a fourth attorney came along and once again he did at least acknowledge that this was a pressured high noon twelve hour kind of a plea agreement that he was under substantial dress and that our attorney also added the additional grounds that at the time of the plea hearing unbeknownst to mr ramirez who thought he was on cold medication he was in fact on some heavy duty barbiturates for seizure condition which is which could have influenced some of the situations that time at the end of the withdrawal hearing pages two fifty forty two fifty six mr ramirez tells triste articulate to the court his prostration of the entire process there's a perception here that he's just being rushed through the court is found in a determined to have him get to trial he was only arraigned in march and then they and the court is sticking to a june fifteenth hearing da precisely what is your argument that there was a fair and just reason to allow him to withdraw the plea the fair and just reason is he was denied effective assistance of counsel because he did not his there is no way his attorney could possibly have ever been prepared for a hearing on the fifteenth of june not that he didn't know what was going on during the police here we don't know that because we don't know the judge did not want to hear from the doctor that was called we don't know whether he understood that or not a time out would mean the judge didn't want to hear from the doctor who was called ramirez was on the date of the hearing there's no way that he could actually definitively know because he wasn't there some of the doctor's notes from the the prosecution the government's witnesses indicated that there were some people usually and things ok in terms of his cognitive functioning well that you know that's what the judge believed in looking at it in retrospect looking at that particular hearing at the time if that's not the standard the standard is this is some major information that was not available at the well that's a question i have in terms of what's available or not available on the drug issue are you saying your client didn't know the difference between over the counter cold medication and what you described as a prescription heavy duty or bit you would or some other form of drug there is nothing in the record that says that he did or did not he just as he did what he says he says he had taken medication drugs or alcohol within the last seventy two hours and he says medication for cold and sinus the course is ok just over the counter medication and he says yes so my question is i'm having some trouble trying to understand what to do with the  drug information that was known at the time but wasn't disclosed to the court that's what's kind of tripping me up if you can understand because if he hands things back and says well no i wasn't what's the judge to do well certainly if we're talking about the plea being about voluntary and if we were talking about a post sentencing withdraw a motion that would clearly be the case and i think that there would be no reason to say that this was invalid that may in fact lend itself to the conclusion that he didn't know exactly what he was doing if he thinks he's only taking over the counter medication i don't have any reason to believe why would he lie about that i mean when you say it may it also may not it's true but we're talking about fair and just reasons here and th isn't someone who came in after the fact after he got his pre sentence report and decided oh one of you know i don't want to do this particular plea from the very beginning he didn't want to do this thing and he got talked into it he got pressured into it rushed to the system but what would be the standard i was trying to figure that out because there was some sympathy here kind of like a mobius strip because but for the drugs he might not have known but because of the drugs he could have you know i think it's right of like in this continuous loop the doctor says there's a possibility it could have had an effect what would be the standard we would apply in a case like this to determine whether it's a fair and just rea well it was not known at the time and apparently i'm sure that if it was known by mr iverson it was a really good attorney he would have brought it up at the time if it is a very liberal standard to withdraw a motion at this point in time to withdraw the motion what a resolution would be that would be satisfactory to your client i don't know that i think that certainly is a possibility given the fact that the sentencing guidelines are different than they used to be i don't know what they're still that seven year  definite possibility i would certainly strongly recommend that to the client ok given the state of the i have another question i'm i'm having a bit of a disconnect there i just went back and looked the you know the motion to withdraw all the papers that were filed within and they all seem to focus on his mental state at the time and i'm not seeing anything in here where is it that really this is or as a result of having been pushed into it by the lawyer well it's as i said before it's it is through mr ramirez his own words because by the time he gets around to a lawyer that actually files it it isn't that clear it is it's not there at all that's the problem i mean i just read the notice of the motion again in the motion papers itself and there isn't a word in there about anything you argued today in terms of being pushed into it secondly i went back and took a look at judge anderson's whoever it was is and he doesn't make any reference to this at all so i think he's had trouble finding your argument in the papers leading up to this there are not in the papers what i'm trying to two forty one the judge will not let him articulate what why he thinks that he should be able to withdraw the play says speak through your attorney what is an appropriate thing to do i mean you're getting a lot of chatter now off the walls by the client he went to trial and is convicted he was certainly going to face a life sentence but if you pled guilty he had the chance of getting out of prison during his lifetime and what not not too much and it was a just and this is a difficult decision and that is clear this was a fifteen year  medications and asthma asthma medications and ultimately some antidepressants at the time but beyond that i don't think we know that he's in he's necessarily and poor he sort of terminal condition  but back to be sure that was a difficult decision to make and i think that what happened here was as the defendant considered it more after the fact he changed his mind and felt he wanted to take the chance on trial and present his motion to given the length these things that he was facing he should be permitted to do that and that clearly was not a fair and just reason and this court case or a change of heart is is not sufficient and that was essentially what was presented at that time  subsequently through new counsel he developed the issue that he was on these things or magic eight medication the time and that may have affected his judgment at that time and he presented that as a reason for withdrawing his guilty plea put too much time pressure on the defendant by the not granting a continuance but that really that she was really never developed in the district court and in fact i mean the motion even even second the fourth counsel who assistance of counsel if you went to trial there was never that kind is you barred from pursuing that on post conviction collateral review no i don't believe south ivax where you think it ought to be raised right that certainly would be an option he could raise if you if you believe that he counsel had a number of conflicts and was unable to find a week in which he wouldn't have to be gone first for one day for first of all he had i had public defenders retreat that was not taken out of commission for a couple days one week he had a divorce proceeding in his own matter the following week so he was concerned about not being able to finish out the trial on any given week so he asked a question yeah charla laugh and that through various conflicts it wouldn't that he has to put it off until august the court was disinclined to do that  fact at the end of the day and the court given the choice of proceeding on the fifteenth of june or the twenty second i believe it was a gin and and in order to accommodate the conflicts and at that point and the  counsel indicated that it would be he believed it would be in his client's interest to go ahead and proceed on the fifteenth given the court's flexibility in allowing the court to go dark to accommodate his scheduling conflicts so the time pressure and issue against a deadline and that it was more in the context of explaining why he was bringing these matters to the attention now and had not and had not brought them up at the time and and i think but i think that's just the reality that at some point there is little bit of passing in the night between the judge and this argument that's being made on the medication because the judge keeps talking about what we would consider normal competency standards and there's no doubt that he understood what was going on isn't the question that was really argued is to whether the medication impaired his judgment in terms of making that decision which is a little it's a different question from saying did he understand was he competent i think i mean i think but there's no indication that judge anderson believed he was i mean the issue was presented to him that he was taking these medications and that they had impaired his judgment and that and so to the extent that the court was looking at his competency and his ability to understand those are all valid things for the court to be considering under either standard and so the court did consider that there's not a standard that was recited throughout the briefs and the argument in the district court was always the fair and just reason standard there's no indication that the court misunderstood that standard in this case unlike some of the other cases like davis that are cited and in the breaks and so on evaluating that the court had an evidence before it and they detailed findings regarding that evidence in was no indication and between may twentieth of two thousand and four and july fifteenth two thousand and four which was the period in which he pled guilty and that there was any impairment that there were any side effects no that or that there were any adverse reactions to that medication and he noted that those things would have been would have been brought to the tension had there been concerns and so in fact the change on may twenty eighth two thousand the only side effects from the previous medications that had been noted and were is certainly no indication in the record and the judge have before him a defendant the whole record and a change of plea and was therefore it was able to observe his entire demeanor i think there are any number of explanations for why he might not have have gone to that information which might mean he might impaired at that time so it may come like that against his own observations of the defendant at the time and make a conclusion again not going to the validity of the plea but as to whether the defendant had in fact established a fair and just reason and he found the judge found as i think you could the court know we are never totally close to resolution of cases and obviously we did negotiate this plea and we do think it's a valid plea yes and the other hand if you were to lose