scope i'm here to ask the court to find that the guilty plea that was entered should be withdrawn that the district court failed to comply with the role and statute that the appellant suffered prejudice from the ineffective assistance of his counsel in jail and to provide adequate information concerning the underlying facts of the case the options that he had under the law the roles and the effect of the pl guilty in particular in his parent counsel's affidavit burst basically just negate all of that yes and that's what judge the district court judge relied upon yes and because we have to know both of you the court is entitle to consider both that review judge last next decision on the motion to withdraw for its novel well i think what you need to do is to think that you're entitled to consider all the facts that were presented separate from what judge the district credibility but i think that the novo review allows you to consider that if there is substantial evidence in the record would make that a reasonable action on your part to understand the context of the facts presented and reach a fair determination  the salient question i think is whether or not mr and i have trouble with his name so i'm going to refer to him as helen i paula gys the whether the appellant did understand it was placed in a position where he could understand it or its trial counsel gave him sufficient information so that he can be found to have understood the issues that he was confronting it's undisputed that he's not well educated that he's not familiar with the legal system of the united his declaration he explains meeting with them and reviewing the evidence and that his client understood that there was a very compelling case against him the product of a parent not really extensive investigation this is true and we know from experience both with appeal and trial work that it's not uncommon for counsel to say i have reviewed the case and then they mean simply i've read the information or the indictment i've read the general proposition of what the facts are given an outline of the case and i d is there had been an effort it explanation he understood it was me in a play offered and he understood the broad terms but now there's no question from the court you have in front of you this fourteen page plea agreement it has been translated for you and read to you correct answer responsible for his answers well that's true and he keeps telling the district court yes i understand yes i understand yes i understand and now we're supposed to we're supposed to say well he was told he was last answer yes to everything whether you understood it or not unfortunately that's not unjust result here he's not allowed to have his trial and why is that unjust well in this case because he was not properly advised of the consequence he denies that he's guilty and while others compelling evidence to welcoming his confession statement that was presented to him as a requirement to accept in order to gain some benefit so he accepted it and he explains that he didn't understand fully what he was doing but that he felt that he was coerced into accepting what he was presented circle back on my question about the standard interview because in response to judge by piece questions about it's to the effect that at some point the trial judge has to take your client's word for it in other words there's this one on one exchange at the time of taking the plea to make sure that your client understood and we of course as as you indicated have to take that that child judge's superior position to assess the credibility and really gauge whether this person there stands or not i think sometimes that point well i do because it gets the result that i want that's true now it's the same time there are two futures that allow us to further consider whether credibility is at issue  conference it was hell is accurately described by my client and the coersion that runs from that is accurately described this gives a reason why the the trial court not having inquired into that is not fully advised of the circumstances  affecting the appellant's responses and it's the responses that he's using to assess credibility now if the current law and your time is ticking forgive me for interrupting but judge last night has told us he knew about that the package deal that it was a package he he doesn't say that he's cut anything about his co defendants we're seeing him or pressuring him to enter into that plea agreement as a package deal and that is traditionally the concern that is privilege and his right to go to trial which he feels was taken away by the influence of the judge who was conducting the conflict so your client learned about these this type of settlement conference in prison requested the settlement conference insisted upon  settlement conference and i'm having a really hard time and i just want to give you a fair chance to respond but it will ensure that the his right to trial was taken away and it seems to me that he was really insistent upon this very procedure that was afforded to him according to procedure voice which would make sense because it was certainly in flux whether it was available and whether it was a proper exercise of the judicial action but the statement that the pellet makes is that it was brought to him by his trial lawyer his trial lawyer insisted on his taking the deal and that had he not had that insistence and the insurance the assurance from the judge who is conducting the hearing he would not have done it how many years did your client get the i think the mandatory minimum if he had been convicted on all counts would have been twenty five years right i believe that's correct right i'll accept it as correct i'd have to recount and lot of jail time he was facing a lot of jobs so just one final thing it seems to me analysis never mentioned feeling pressured by the judge to perform the settlement conference is that right he did in his motion to withdraw the didn't when he was i'm sorry he conference judge the suggestion is made by the appellant that the settlement conference judge gave assurance of a quote fair sentence which he interpreted in light of the sentence that he thought was fair and that he had said to his attorney he would accept and believe it's fair and that that is part of the coersion that he felt well that it's also part of it's also strong support for judge last next conclusion that this significant thing at this discussion in the role of the case law is that when the motion to withdraw is maybe for sentencing there is less consideration be given to the idea of regret and remorse which was done in this case he did not want to go conclude that there were those factual findings were not supported by the evidence and that would be an abuse of discretion or if the district court judge made a law illegal error would be an abuse that would be an abuse but there seems to be ample evidence here that the judge was nick relied on i would agree your honor did the defendant ever complain that the judge who conducted the settlement conference unfairly pressure pressure to him no the only the only complaint made regarding judge martin isn't this brief before this court and i actually have exactly what mr brierly said her disco said to judge last night who's the trial judge at the hearing where mr glascock was inquiring as to why he wanted to withdraw his  fairlie produced go said i don't know if you remember when you told me mr belisa don't worry about it i'm going to give you a fair time i wasn't going to sign but after the whole day's pressure in your words those words were what made me make the decision week then went back and reviewed the transcript from the colloquy and noted that he did say that he would give that he would be fair in sentencing but he made that comment after mr burleson argues go had already entered his plea so and he does make a note of that in his order and those are just last next words yes yes then there was no allegation that then any pressure applied by judge martinez and the settlement conference which was i thought his only comment about the pressure that he felt was that he had to make a decision that did that's true that is true he felt the timing of it was coercive and i'm that guy going it was going to hold the offer open that window over an expired that's correct that's correct and he wanted to go to the offer he felt pressured to take he said he said that he didn't he felt pressure to keep his brother out of going to try her brother right yes but we're always concerned about these package deals and about the  think kind of very understandably and of course to these folks were his siblings and so and so what about that he wasn't wrong right he the deal was that if he had rejected this deal what would either of his brothers been allowed to accept it right so no that was the understanding that was a condition of the package plea and i should we be concerned about the nature of of the deal exerting pressure on any one of these defendants well this court has noticed that there that is a concern but there there needs to be some kind of indication that there's been the concern is that the defendant who stands to gain the most will pressure the co defendants who stand to gain the lease in this case first of all there's no indication that that kind of pressure lost so he did have the confession and they also had the wiretap recordings of his conversations on his phone which the court had denied a motion to suppress to suppress on it so he it was a good deal for mr burt barely saw her do so but not the deal he was looking for closer we know we're going to go over fifteen during the settlement conference that was clear throughout the entire settlement conference it was also clear at every single juncture in the year leading up to it every single time plea negotiations came up and the government said no ten is not going to happen there was also a court certified translator that participated in the settlement conversation and the settlement discussions so any suggestion that he didn't understand it was happening that was at the heart of the negotiations whether he would be allowed to argue for fifteen and the government could go as high as the as life or whether there was going to be a higher than fifteen floor and the government would then argue for a lower than life sentence he opted to be able to argue for fifteen that was that was the heart of the negotiation but just to be able to argue for it yes right so could you tell me just quickly at what junctures was there a interpreter and when was there not an interpreter and i understand defense counsel mr hernandez was a spanish speaker but correct so agreement was read to him by a court certified translator and so there was that and then there was of course mr hernandez who participated who spoke spanish it was not a court certified translator ok i think there were thirty three defendant i believe it was thirty four that after the thirty three co defendants i should say and four participated in the settlement conference on this day actually i think three participate in the conference i haven't done actually participate in the conference was part of the