the justices are not in disagreement as to the conclusion that in order for there to be a valid waiver of the right to counsel then it must be informed about certain information including opinion in order to comply with von moltke in light of our interpretation of what it means in arnold and let me be a little more clear about that i read our decision arnold is saying and i think that's johnson actually said so that von moltke basically suggests a standard of perfection in other words a level of colloquy that we can't really expect in every criminal case but the question that we have to look at is whether there was sensually and not compliance with the colloquy to establish the knowing and intelligent waiver and if i understand that your client had previously gone for on two prior cases couldn't the trial court have considered all of those factors in determining whether he knew what he was doing well those factors could be considered but it's also true  so that's why is that why his waiver was annoying and that's one of the reasons is that he was actually misinformed only reason i care about ok so instead of answering our question we ask you questions about what he was told in terms of the maximum sentence you're going someplace else and we want to know what you think about the fact that he was confused about what the range of sentence was and what your argument on that well even as the multi doesn't require on of the court nine years in state prison good luck to you those are the orders of the defendant how did you get nine years i didn't get them that's what you're facing and then we get into this business about it's where becomes clear that he doesn't know what the maximum sentence is and then the course you are beginning to understand the dangers of representing yourself because you don't even know what your possible sentences i was in a pretty clear undergone mulcair arnel or any of the other cases that he's entitled to know before the proper decision is made what his my years judges you don't even know your possible sentence or i tell you what we understand your argument very clearly why get the impression that just this judge was irritated with this guy and you just get thank you and this is well you're stuck now and that's not really what this is all about i mean this isn't to me it doesn't represent a careful dealing with a pro per but still the test is you know in light of the entire record does the defendant have sufficient and information in his mind to make a knowing and intelligent man that is  made with his eyes open and he knew what he was doing you know what you're getting is yourself into you basically and i don't think that that particularly require i hate the keep reading this you are beginning to understand the dangers of representing yourself this is right after he took the waiver you're supposed to understand the dangers before he takes the waiver not a judge says now that you've now that i've taken the waiver now you're beginning to get the idea you don't even know what your sentence if i understand your os is not good i understand your honest point but really we have to go back to what the test is the test is whether the defendant normally and intelligently invol what we can know about this particular defendant when he made that waiver which at least thing is this is a very sophisticated event and he knew and the judge was just playing cat and mouse with what i really can't be too much of a mind reader back we hold against him no no here's the problem i have with the court of appeals of pain all of the trial court did not explicitly state that the titian faced a possible sense of nine years before accepting petitioners waiver given all of the information