under the standard associated with united states which is chronic second because his counsel specifically gave him a release advice about the sentence he would receive the pled guilty and so provided ineffective assistance under strickland and hilversu i want to plead guilty and throw myself on the mercy of the court she said if you do that if if if he was if if to the end that was absolutely guilty yeah absolutely guilty would your phrase hopper there possibly be any pre still just going to trial most of what criminal defense lawyers do in most cases is negotiated this position for the fines she was ineffective because a she was completely unable to do so and second because when he wanted to plead she said that the sentence you can get is thirty five whole life that wasn't true and she knew it she was anxious to talk him out of doing what was the most sensible thing for him but didn't fit with with her bizarre and paranoid cosmology and in that's and that's that straightforward ineffective assistance under under strickland until versus  justice the mysteries which he points out in the you point out that it was not raised in the district court this court retains the discretion to decide that nonetheless and the standard is if the issue was presented and present it is purely one of law and the opposing party will suffer no prejudice as a result of the failure to raise it in the trial court all of them in this case all of the facts to be found all of the operative facts are spread plainly on the state court record it's right there nakedly in the transcript court's decision to know the facts are plain the issue is purely one of long ok if i can amuse you further or answer any questions i would be glad to otherwise i'll reserve for a bottle ok was held answer the mr young effectively had chosen to take this case to trial there were no further determinate term offers made on the part of the people and any offers made or at least any attempts at negotiations made both by the public speak taken or that's true the state bar found that eventually she was not competent to represent anyone in any court at the time that she was disbarred the language leading up to that is somewhat disturbing and her conduct was bizarre and unusual to put it plainly however there is no finding that she suffered from any sort of mental disease she may have however there is no evidence in this record nor any evidence in front of the state bar court that showed that she suffered from a mental disease or any type of disorder  actually affected her representation prior to the time she was disbarred and in fact four of the five charges in her disbarment proceeding had nothing to do with her representation of clients at trial they all had to do with ever held that attorney who has not been disbarred cannot render assistance to counsel well in other words as a general proposition but if she is in this way to do about the same as she did there was nothing she could do at the time that appellant rejected the people's determinate term offers and was held to answer there were no more determinant term deals and in fact he actually got quite a windfall at the end of the people's case when he stood up and said i want to plead guilty he said i will take any determinant term offer that's exactly what he got here eventually the trial court we call the sentence struck one of the prior the stricklin test still applies the reason that test a fly's is because there are so many vagaries in mental illness that we're not quite sure exactly what happens if those vagaries played out at trial the record should support it here we have a trial we have a trial in which a ant is not contesting any of the actions that actually took a trial in fact she tried as good a case as possible under the circumstances the problem is once he chose to reject the people's offers he was rolling the dice that the options were extremely limited he could take the case to trial and risk getting a verdict from the jury or he could plead guilty and then for the mercy of the court which up until the court actually struck the priors and recalled the sentence there was no indication that your honor i'm not sure that she was ever actually charged with a crime the state bar found that she had misrepresented her clients because she did not take further action on their cases and did not contact them is that the prosecutor knows i'm not sure that the inform the court of this i'm sure the court knew as well but there's nothing in the record that suggests either way though there were certain court officials that were also accused in this case in the i don't know if it was or not your honor  the question is in looking at a chronic type situation the reason that chronic if if it is indeed a holding and if not it's ficta but the reason why a chronic prejudice per se situation would apply is simply because prejudice itself is so apparent for the record that the cost of litigating prejudice is not worth it that's not true here here we have a complete record we have everything we need to determine what happened in this case appellant received quite a windfall when the court struck his sentence and gave him the determinate term offer that he had requested this court should not grant him the same winfall if the court has no further questions we would submit the matter decision for him to make and for the state to continue to assert that it was a three strikes case and nothing could happen is absurd literally given that it was in the end it wasn't a three strikes case