good morning i'm richard such for john clarke i want to concentrate on what i think is the clearest part of our case courts aware that we're making too closely related arguments number one that the appellant should have been allowed to challenge the constitutional validity of his nine hundred seventy four conviction in the district court and to have an evidentiary hearing on the factual issues that were presented and secondly that appellate was denied his right to the effective assistance of federal habeas proceeding on grounds other than absolute denial of the right to counsel and that would be a case in which he didn't forego his state remedy but instead was  assume that it was it didn't really matter whether he was advised in the municipal court really pleaded guilty or later when he appeared in the supreme court simply for the purposes of sentencing of course it makes all the difference in the world whether he was advised his rights and were aware of that was aware of them at the time he actually pleaded guilty and and the public art in that proceeding you know seek to recognize that he wasn't advised of those rights there was no record that he was aware of those rights when he pleaded guilty in the pleaded guilty in the me just what court and further in the ninety five one hundred eighty seven proceedings the issue whatsoever was made of the fact that the records failed to show that he was aware of the magistrate the only record that we have of that is that probably doesn't say anything at all about consequences so there was no showing a record what it whatever that with mr clarke pleaded guilty he was aware of the clarke's declaration to the district court that he when he pleaded guilty municipal court there's actually no record that he was advised of his rights the consequences he didn't die in fact knows those constitutional trial rights or the tried this case in ninety seven he saw that the prior had been there had been an evidentiary hearing held into a new county petitioner testified under oath at that right he waited from you can do anything in seventy four it is wrecked appeal or a collateral attack and then in eighty five he challenge that a motion to strike on constitutional grounds and an evidence for hearing with he conviction in the two waiting a conviction in eighty five came out and challenges that now with a declaration that completely contradicts what he said in the eighty five evidence or hearing had the record of the eighty five challenge to the seventy four conviction before him so even if petitioner had come forward and say i was that i wasn't advised of my rights that new of his rights when he pleaded guilty in the municipal court and his current declaration is that well he was not advised of his rights no he didn't know about them and on the other question of the sex offender registration it's true that he had previously registered on account of misdemeanor convictions which could have been cleared which could have spared him from the lifetime obligation to register as a sex offender but a lifetime liability to be in president of california's three strikes law for twenty five years to life for failing to register as a sex offender but his current declaration charles us that he didn't know when he pleaded guilty in the municipal court in one hundred seventy four the next based on the counters united states vs and i'm not sure i'm pronouncing it right little guy or