appellant you're welcome to do so you don't need permission from the bench but keep an eye on the clock because when it comes up double zeros you're done with that by way of an introduction united states because i don't know that they would greet that shackling is permissible if the state can show that there is a compelling reason for it in a criminal case i agree that shackling is appropriate in some cases but in this particular case you know what the trial just comes on the bench and just by edict says this is what happened he attacked the deputy sheriff i think the escape wasn't even mentioned by the trial judge but rather by mr reed in his trying to  evidentiary hearing to determine what happened with the deputy sheriff and then is there any alternative to that a good lawyer i submit would have done that but the bullying that took place from the ricci standpoint he says that there was an accident some type of we don't really know what happened here i mean we have the characterization by the trial judge as that he attacked the deputy sheriff  the courtroom i think that's important because the focus of all of the the appropriateness the shackling is really more who was the disrupted in the courtroom and did it did he do anything that would show he's not going to behave in the cell but we don't know how serious or harlem that was there's also on the record that he was never charged with anything so that would lead me to believe that it wasn't the most serious event in the world or one it's possible to read the record that way but i think that this court should be worried that the record is missing because the what the trial judge decided to do and then at the sink what the lawyer failed to do and that is to request a hearing it wouldn't have taken much and that's one of the issues knowing whether any juror ever saw the shackles but what you have you know i would submit is mr reid's account of what happened he was obviously a participant he was there and his petition i would ask the court to accept  that wasn't the finding that they need and i think that the finding they did me harm because i'm prejudiced it's that's really what's going on we have to review to know over the question of whether or not there was a procedural the fall because it goes to the very power which he did now the important part about that is that he then raised various issues on appeal he could have raised himself the substantive underlying shackling issue on appeal if indeed he felt it was an abus so this was an issue that he himself knew about he removed he didn't include it in his own brief because he felt he didn't have enough pages he can fit all of his various numerous arguments with them so he knew about it judgment and that he should do so immediately and stayed the pending appeal so that he could argue in effect of assistance of counsel on another issue in other words trailer to prepare for trial or something of that nature why wouldn't attention in many cases it might be your are in this case it was not for several reasons first and foremost the incident did occur as the  saying it wise as well in terms of that that the that problem is the result of no objection being raised and to the point of asking a question as to why that would not have been an appropriate issue to raise on appeal issue specifically talked about by trial counsel for petitioner and he mentioned to the court i understand that this court may take notice of some other matters and of her during trial and i ask this court please do not hold those against my client for purposes of sentencing because he will he may have to pay the price on whatever else may be charged in this case but don't make him pay the price now with respect to the sentencing so it was an issue the trial counsel was well aware of and there after the prosecution argued and specifically without objection to this and then a foiled escape attempt the deputy was injured not seriously and there was no objection by the deficient counsel who were both given the opportunity to that he was in no way ready to go to trial on this domestic violence and kidnapping of of the wife he asked for additional time and he was given additional time i think it was twenty second the court date several weeks  other aspect about the mandate that's if you wait until after the appeal then demand issues you have thirty days or thirty that didn't preclude him before that point within ninety days and immediately filing for post conviction relief now  prisoner cannot be compelled to wear prison garb that's just there's no sound reason for it so that's illegal on its face in that case the petitioner did not object at trial he wore the prison clothes and later tried to raise the issue and the there is no evidence whatsoever as to exactly the manner in which he was shackled or what was visible what was not primarily as we've argued to the theater to object that the verdict might be coming in shortly under the circumstances any trial court given an attack on a bail out would be justified and shackling the question of visibility is not so much of an issue anymore it's not as if he was brought in in jail garb and manacles all over him  similarly in this court you have to wait for post conviction so that's what he wanted to do is to raise both issues the shackling could embrace as an ineffective assistance of counsel which he doesn't have to wait for his direct appeal if it's a trial was that your client was advised by his trial counsel that if he wanted to file a rule thirty to petition that he had to do it within ninety days so he was told that he needed to get his paperwork started and he