please during a rushed and confusing hearing where he was suffering from serious mental health sometimes he was confused and his judgment was inherited both or and during the week hearing and i'm biased expert witness stated that mr wilson did not have the capacity to make a coherent or logical decision at the time of the we hearing as a result because we were not knowing voluntary and elegant as required particular case that finding was objective and reasonable and one reason is because the state court said that the trial judge had a superior opportunity to evaluate mr wilson's mental state that was the reasoning that they actually used in the opinion and that was objective we are reasonable under the facts of his case here wilcox had been seeing mr wilson weekly twenty five weeks or more and had spoken to him and the the plea hearing judge went through very very carefully the requisite questions for determining voluntariness and that your client knew what he was doing in a complicated case but in a very what appeared to me to be a very odd whole complete manner and i think you'd have a lot of trouble here even if there weren't at the deference charging documents the st amended complaint was orally amended just moments before the we and the judge himself we hearing judge was used during the hearing about how many counts had been added were not correctly described to mr wilson's other words did the judge not explain ultimately what you regard with what he was pleading to your honor at one point week hearing the judge said it is too many counts there is only six days how can we have nine counts question mark did i miss here you and the judge himself was confused about what was happening and two problems here one is that there was no written charging document setting forth these new charges there was also no written wee agreement which is what you usually have in front of a defendant both before this will be and during the facing a choice between upon conviction a virtually certain life sentence and he instead i chance to get out of jail some someday because it isn't isn't that what he was facing m wasn't it clear indistinguishable from the previous respective counts in the original complaint but each new count twenty years of the forty years accounted for two years of the additional two additional years of sentence and and also you sort of are making so large amounts it seems to be about the procedure itself not about his competence and you don't have a freestanding playing do you that the  the state courts relied on essential we the procedural regularity of the proceeding to overcome mr wilson's very compelling evidence that he was mentally disturbed at the time of th hearing and couldn't understand the proceeding let me just let me ask you further then about dr wilcox is you started out by saying well you had an objective an unbiased something like that but he was his therapist this wasn't a court is did the defense counsel know about it and know that he was there so that you know it could have been all if the defense counsel wished oh it is your honor referring simply there for whatever reason he was d told by anybody but he was there and observed it and then later it says opinion about fair that's true your honor he was present at the police hearing and then he met mr wilson after the we hearing at the jail and then he provided us sworn declaration with his opinion that mr wilcox or no thanks no reason should know but any particular reason that he was there at the plea hearing i don't usually see that or there is that's true your honor it is unusual there is no information in the record about why you've acted willcox attended we're hearing that is something that could have been explored at an evidentiary hearing and should be explored at an evidentiary hearing on the claim i mean if court a court of courthouse to review that finding under the highly deferential and standard imposed by had a look st to the bargain or here it was a very full and complete for  year the defendant stated under oath that he had had enough time to talk to his counsel and that he understood the charges and the rights that he was giving us those statements under oath are entitled to a strong showing of a raft of the and reliability in addition to that we have defense counsel who was described as being exceptionally qualified and competent who raised no concerns about his client's our city we have the prosecutor and the trial judge there were absolutely no concerns raised by anybody so this is a formidable barrier to overcome then we have the state recollection of what happened and description of what happened was more reliable than dr wilcox's and this again is supported by the record there was a complicated plea here the defendant didn't just plead to everything he made sure that he didn't want to play to the counts of lewd and lascivious conduct as to his daughter he got a court trial on those  he didn't want to plead to counts as to a th victim those counts were dismissed it was a it was a complicated plea and the trial court very carefully and very thoroughly went through all the the complicated nature of observations were more compelling than dr wilcox who was an observer at the time that the critical time that the actual plea was taken the trial court here was engaged didn't ask leading questions there were some yes answers some no answers and he the trial court made sure the defendant understood what was going on so given this record the trial hard terminations on the facts was reasonable court did reject the federal constitutional claim again about was the sceptically rejected by the trial court it's one of the arguments made in the reply brief but if you look at page forty three dollars of the extra to want to see how things were going there's nothing in the record fair to indicate why he was there you didn't speak to the defendant are about fifteen minutes before the play of the defendants are classed so it it suggests that maybe he was there  where mr wilson was represented by someone highly regarded highly experienced would watch out for anything like leading questions wrong he thought was going to mislead his client does that should that play a role in our about the nature of the charges but it's only a presumption it's not an absolute rule and it can be overcome by other evidence and i think that applies equally when the person has a sterling reputation in this case the state courts relied on the proceeding to say that mr our doctor will cost in a declaration about mental health problems shouldn't be given great weight they said well because this proceeding was so well done essentially we know that there were really not a problem but mr wilson didn't get to basic procedural benefits one being a written plea agreement the other being written notice of the charges o