second sentence of twenty six years to life what she's already completed fifteen years based on an erroneous admission elicited by her hurt her counsel erroneous lee elicited admission to a strike prior that was not a valid strike prior without doing any investigation of the underlying file contrary to strickland the victim here story jean height personally appeared at miss kessler's sentencing and told the court she did not believe a twenty five year at at the time of trial and the parties know this again it's not in the record i don't want this guy's matters that are not directly in the record but at the time of trial it was clear that both sides understood this case was not a twenty six to life case but it worked out that way because of mr hodes ineffective assistance well it worked out that way because of california's three strikes law that that would be and that would be that's the law your honor that is the that there was a declaration there was a sentencing memorandum that was entered in nevada  in your honor i do not qualify as a california burglary or a california strike the offense that's in the further excerpts of record that we submitted with the reply brief and off one twenty and he asked mr hope to stipulate that the nevada burglary qualified as a california first degree burglary and mr you can it's one of these moments in reading a transcript for me at least when it was very easy to imagine the party's expressions and the light bulb going on in mr hodes head if he didn't didn't the council have access to known evidence regarding the nevada case supporting a finding  are to establish that a and a foreign conviction qualifies the california strike of the offense and responder has not addressed sure that the prosecution couldn't come up with something that would establish it and didn't have reason not to want to get into the details of her prior conviction well we have been hearing this been made is that this is a tactical decision because he doesn't want the california court that he's in front of here to started to get into her prior criminal conduct for fear that it's going to tilt the balance as to whether she's going to be convicted in a california proceeding at all or you ask i'm sure your question are you asking me about the  mr host thinking or mr knowles the prosecutor thinking mr hoax thank you i don't think he's eager to have the jury hear about his client's past criminal record under strickland and and  terry williams your honor united states supreme court cases trial counsel has a duty to conduct an adequate investigation to make an informed decision as to the strategy to be employed at trial and in conducting the proceedings mr hope did not conduct that investigation as in about a prior absent that investigation he could not make an intelligent reasonable tactical decision within strickland you know in the record mr holder says all right and we've decided tath lee that we do not want the mr hope was not engaging in a reasonable time centrally what i was i want to repeat the answer again but and perhaps the misperceiving the court's question mr hope had not conducted an adequate investigation to make an informed reasonable tactical decision well he may have a sense from his client as to what the crime was and his concern was he don't he can't be certain what the prosecution will come up with in order to prove up that can it was it was mr hose obligation your honor to investigate that file as we know hey be as counsel stuff for you to take in that file mr hope did not apparently bother to obtain that file and equally importantly underrun pia what the defendant tells or does not tell trial counsel does not limit trial counsel's duty of investigation trial counsel's duty of investigation is independent of what the client tells counsel and particularly as to a prior offense which is a matter that  i can see them going over my time which involves legal standards it's not something that the client is going to be informed as make be able to give counsel an informed response and with that unless the court has further  dwelling that was the subject of burglary we have the petitioners own statement which was incorporated in a judicial complaint in a charge something prior strike don't you have to prove that prior strike or gal for new law you do have to do that if they don't waive the requirement that you have to prove prove it which she did but we also we actually do know we don't have to she was arrested near her house and she admitted that she she and her cohort cohort burglarized the residence and we know that that was inhabited that statement by her is in is recounted by a police officer and that is that is we created a judicial document because the magistrate or but i don't know the actual title but who makes up the just complaint in nevada signed it and therefore what was conviction in nevada was burglary burglary does not require in divided that to be a residence but in fact it was and in california you have to show that something that was a burglary in fact involved residence for it to be a strike  that's what she admitted in california that whatever want to greece was a burglary in fact involved residence the entire complaint by petitioner is that count so did not investigate whether or not in evidence or counsel to investigate there's we don't have evidence as to what counsel had except we do know on the record that the da said in front of counsel who didn't dispute it he saw that he saw the documentation that i had before and prior to the actual admissions so there's in the statements that somehow counsel investigate and there's not a shred of proof the presumption is counsel did either investigate or me to be reasonable tactiles isn't not investigate  by all indications he had the record and if i'm going to mention for example one of my best cases vito points out if counsel may well have gotten it from the prosecutor you don't have a nevada burglary conviction was not in the first degree as required under the california three strikes law because the relevant nevada criminal statute lacks degrees it is of no moment because the question of whether it trial counsel admitted a prior burglary conviction as a strike under the california three strikes law where the when crime in california i would not have counted as a as a strike because it was not in the first degree times in california cases you've got california does it just narrow itself to what the charged elements are in a prior state rather if as a fact if there are there was something else that makes a strike in reacted the way he did when trial counsel after the jury started has gone deliberations starts you know wanting to hedge now that he's gotten the benefit of the trial in which the priors were gotten into ineffective assistance of counsel here and his failure to investigate at the time of trial and his refusal to cooperate with counsel and his refusal to turn over his file to have us counsel until january of two thousand and five as contained the declaration of habeas counsel which is in the excerpt of record mr hope also refused to respond to three requests from the state court of appeal to comment on the claim much as he refused to cooperate with the state bar in his state bar proceeding which result in his case and when pursuant to rowland harrington when a deeper applies the question is not whether counsel's actions were reasonable the question is whether there is any reasonable argument that strickland's deferential your honor we are under yeah we argue in the i c my time is coming down here we argue in the reply brief seven different reasons why appeal is not is met satisfied or seconds left that may not be very persuasive argument we've read it and we're asking a question so what do you think is the best reason for why i think they're all  factual findings that are unreasonable it ignores showings that were made in the petition before the court ignores evidence that was shown to that court it states the law in an erroneous lead ignores the controlling federal law lastly if i may we know what mr knowles had at the time of trial because he filed a declaration with the people's return in the trial court which is contained in the further excerpts of record at one seven three three one seven four and paragraph four of that at pages one seven three three one seven four states what he had what he had was the police report and a witness list and under the california courts california decisions apply hernandez and rodriguez that's plainly inadequate to establish an out of state prior qualifies as a strike in california and with that i was very respectfully asked the court last has any other questions for me to reverse the three strike conviction here and remand the matter for sentencing without consideration of that strike so that