purposes of delay each of these three requirements the separate and independent purposes of today's argument i would like to focus upon the last requirement that it not be made for purposes of delay the present ca comes to us within the ambit so they d p a and the first question that must be answered by this course is was the district court of appeals decision in this case contrary to or an unreasonable application of controlling the united states supreme  president this court has already answered both of those questions in its case of hirschfield versus pain which i decided to this court in our twenty eight j letter this court has decided that it is neither contrary to nor an unreadable application of a court to conclude that a motion under forever may not be brought for purposes of delay with you outlined the evidence that was presented to demonstrate that it was for purposes of the money yes your honor that is exactly where i would like to turn that before doing so i would like to however probably set the stage and to do so remind the court that at the time when the threat of motion was first brought on may twenty second appellants or a police case was already pending by that time for one year he had already made in march in motion a motion under state courts to have substitute counsel in december now the courts did not hear the  motion at that moment he decided to run a forever motion i believe this is simply by way of background there were three significant events that occurred that would demonstrate for the record his purpose for the way the first  eleventh he came into court and through his counsel he told the court that he would withdraw both is to write a motion and his marked in motion if the court would only postpone the trial this request to withdraw the motions in exchange for a postponement is wholly inconsistent with a legitimate request to represent oneself and it reveals his true purpose here was not to a change that  counsel it was not to represent himself but instead it was simply to delay the trial now the trial court did not buy off on this and it proceeded to first dispose of the mars in motion and then proceed through the front in motion yes the court at the same time knowing that that the lawyer wanted more time to prepare the case the court told the defendant if i grant your most and there will be no delay well your honor this is the first  the stage in this the first admonishments occurred on june eleventh there had been some discussion of the possibility for a continuance but there had been no ruling on a continuance the second event occurs on june twelfth and there's some expansion of the discussion as to the requirements of a continuance since at that point that we hear talk of the fact that the prosecution had released four police reports within a short period anywhere from a month to ten days earlier so it was clear to the court based on the court states now the sun june eleventh the court states you understand that you will not receive me do you understand that you will not receive extra time for preparing the case for motions or for trial and that there is no special investigator assign do you understand that that that by granting this motion or denying this motion has nothing to do with whether or not this court should grant a postponement what the court is informing him is that he will not receive extra time by virtue of the fact that he is representing behalf of the tenth circuit and in us three acres and i am familiar with that decision which rested on california law in part it's you know the ninth circuit doesn't have to follow my decision of the te i recognize that the the question is not whether he is going to be denied his right to prepare i would submit the court is willing to entertain a motion a reasonable motion for his right to prepare but what occurs later on june twelfth is that he is not simply asking for a right to prepare as any right that would be granted to his counsel but he is in fact requesting the sixty day continuance and it's a continuance that's based upon the fact that he wants to reinvestigate the entire crime scene that occurs of at page one hundred of the excerpts of record he wants to investigate matters about which he disagrees with trial coun and what's more important once again on june twelfth he reveals to the court that he has not been able to review documents provided to him by counsel and there's  at that point the trial court inquires and states well isn't it the case that the reason you were not able to review these documents is because you were in a strip cell and the reason you are in a strip cell is because you opened mutilating yourself and the defendant reveals yes i've been mutilated myself for some time now and they put me in a strip cell and so i can't review these files and so it's clear that he's saying he's saying he needs sixty days he controls whether he's in a strip cell because he controls whether he mutilate since all and yet it's evident that there is no guarantee or no even reasonable reason to believe that he will be prepared at the end of sixty days because he is the one who controls this and he is the or rescinded the earlier motion from june eleventh and said i'm not i'm going to rescind that motion and the stated reasons were among other things justice delayed is justice denied but  evident from the colloquy with the defendant the court is concerned and the court determines that this defendant is attempting to the way the proceedings you agree that the request was time mutilating himself who cannot review documents whose who is requesting a sixty day continuance now extending his earlier understanding one day earlier that he would receive no additional time as a result of representing himself and we have he's expressed they expressed recognition on june eleventh when he comes in and says i'll withdraw these motions if you only postpone the trial there is a clear indication of his true purpose what i would like to add at this point before turning to the conclusions of the rock reporting recommendation which cites three primary reasons for finding that there that the state court decision was objective and reasonable i would point out that wh competency determinations whether he's competent to stand trial and the court rejects those motions and this occurs at page one fifty three of the of the record it's not in the excerpts of record but i'd like to quote it to the court because it's quoted by the district court of appeal and it's not nonetheless not even mentioned in the reporting recommendation the court says this in rejecting the thirteen sixty eight hearing the other thing that came that you know concerns me is that when this issue first came up two or three weeks ago so here the court is referring back to june twelfth i had discussion with counsel both counsel about this and he was still mutilating himself at that point in time it just became obvious to me that this is a this is a tactic that he is considering using to prevent himself from participating in this proceeding now what is significant about this ruling the court is characterizing its finding twelve days earlier it is  characterizing its finding before the trial ever began the reporting recommendation would have this court believe that when the trial courts deny the motion for a new trial three months after the trial and in the course of that proceeding found express finding that this was done for purposes of delay and at that point what was the purpose of the request for offer of a representation self representation and that this was part and parcel of his a deliberate attempts to it did occur before but what occurred on june twelfth at the hearing in which the rev and the threat of motion was revote was there occurred the colloquy with the defendant in which he acknowledged and while there had been prior admissions and discussions with counsel as mutilation he stated for the first time i have been able to review the documents that have been provided to me by counsel and the court focused on that in that colloquy and said but the reason you haven't been able to review those  because your mutilating yourself and you're in control of that you're in control of the reason that you're in the strip cell and that you can't get documents and so it became clear to the court perhaps the court simply focused on it for the first time that mutilation was being used by him as a delay tactic as a tactic for controlling and manipulating the proceedings so that he could claim i can prepare a mistress so i can even get documents if i get your position  fifty four d two is whether our district court of appeal was objective only on reasonable in finding that this was done for purposes of the way that's the only question the record amply supports this the record on six twenty four was case for an implied ruling it was implied in the colloquy with the defendant when the judge is is discussing with the defendant his manipulation through mutilation and his control over his behavior and his control over his placement in the strip and simply engaging in historical revisionism to save a judgment that had already occurred and i don't think that this court can say that that that is the only think lucian that can be reached i don't the that that's supported by the record at all but it certainly cannot be said that the district court of appeal in our case was objective leon reasonable in failing to reach that conclusion in failing to assume that the trial court here was simply saying what it needed to say at  that and and if if the court is going to entertain it i would like the opportunity to see it and respond to it that then i'll that's just the housekeeping that are moving moving to the the briefing as it is before the court now i will not address unless the court would like me to issues of timeliness or the issue of equivocation it seems to me that it is clear beyond peradventure that mr pruitt made his request for self representation under forever on a timely basis so i will go now if i may to the to the first to the a deeper standard because there were three grounds that the report recommendation and there are three grounds on which this court may right to self representation there is no doubt but that was the case here the district of the spirit court judge did a very good job of establishing that for the record that mr pruitt fully understood the consequences of his decision now i want to get to you and it seems to me at that point it is contrary to forever where each time we request has been made weeks before trolly was made may twenty second the trial court pruitt delayed the hearing on his request for self referencing representation this court has found on other circumstances that it may follow its own president as to what constitutes and under or look to its own president as what constitutes an unreasonable application of clearly established supreme court law the facts that the second standard under twenty to fifty four d to the one excuse me it seems to me it's quite clear that the district court was correct in its finding that this was an unreasonable application of forever to the facts and as for what the facts are i think it's important that the purpose of delay discussion is all a post hoc discussion it never occurred at the time that the court made its ruling that the superior court judge made his ruling that pruitt was fully capable and had made a knowing waiver of his right to counsel and full capable of exercising his right to self representation counsel has offered a couple of the reasons that he s the day that the motion was first to be heard actually the second day june eleventh because it was first to it was first raised after may twenty second on june tenth counsel from before m counsel of record for mr pro it so that without any inquiry by the court or confirmation from mr the court of mr pruitt he said as follows statements that were made to witnesses that are relevant to this issue this is in response to why he needs more time we haven't done much on this case since we have appeared for the t r city i guess but about three weeks ago because at that time mr pruitt indicate he was going to do it forever motion but he thinks he's willing to withhold his marston motion and his forever motion if we can be granted this short continuance counsel is talking about his own needs there's no inquiry made by the court as to whether mr pruitt agrees with states at the bottom of page eighty nine this is that page forty five line twenty eight of the june eleventh hearing your honor i think the first hurdle we have to get over be a for addressing this motion to issue from the continuance issue and that's quite correct i want to go to us be acres because that is obviously a case that maybe in your mind judge alex aren't and it's completely distinguishable the premise and i don't purport to instruct you on what that case stands for but it seems to me as i read that case that case depended on the fact that there was ample evidence in the record that there was per prior to the motion that there was it was made for  transcript of the clinton era hearing on may twenty seventh he nine hundred ninety seven because he was terribly dissatisfied with his counsel's performance at that point in her hearing and he said so and we conclude that not because we're making in effect our assistance of counsel argument but because it shows clearly that mr pruitt's wish to discharge mr head even if it meant representing himself was heartfelt and clear because if you if you look at the excerpts of record he says that we've just from the corner hearing mr mr head over and over again says i'm not ready to go forward with this case i haven't read the police reports of these new charges that are being brought against is not a purpose of delay case the issue about the strips tell the comes up counsel tells us for the first time on june twelfth that really isn't the case june twelfth the court hears the forever motion and grants it but on june eleven and this is in our supplemental records excerpts of record at s at one twenty nine in response to some questions about how mr pruitt is going to get his his evidence together and his motion together both for purposes of his marston infrared emotions mr pruitt says at page twelve lines twenty three three twenty four five i his to represent allowed to represent himself and the court asked him what kind of a continuance do you need he said sixty days at that point the whole strip search issue comes up my point about about the reference that i gave you the court was fully aware that mr pruitt was in a strict cell when he granted the fred a motion so the suggestion that this is some sort of revelation that comes later when mr pruitt has the  the invitation of the court to say what he thinks he needs for it to to prepare himself for a trial that is a sixty day continuance as opposed to the two or three we continue it's that the court was talking about before it's quite different now i want to go back again to the u s be acres because u s v a care is i think the court in that case after the court makes the point that that there was ample evidence that the motion for self representation in that case was for for purposes of delay because of the the continuing shifting of appointed counsel the flight from the jurisdiction if then does go on to talk about the fact that there would be an issue if if a continuance were were denied to a self representation counsel but in that case the fred a motion was granted thirty days invoked his rights to self representation and that all the requirements of forever have been that that he was entitled to represent himself that read that the that the issue of continuance and other what everybody agreed there was going to be a continuance was intellectually conceptually separate from the fred emotion and the prosecution urged that on the court we got to we got to talk about for the first time now with whether or not again on june fourteenth to discharge mr head and have substitute counsel and he raised he talked to raise again on june fourteenth and this is in the excerpts of record exhibits are supplemental excerpts exhibit sixteen he sought to raise again the forever motion and the trial court cut him off and said you can't do that we're beyond that and and so there's there's no there's no evidence it seems to me that  it was for purposes there's no legitimate evidence that there was from for purposes of the lay and again i come back to this notion you can't you can't talk about things that happened afterwards after the motion has been adamantly denied duncan decided on march twenty eighth i don't have a lexus number but it's case number zero five five five two six five it's again it's all it's of a piece with the line of cases that we've cited in our brief including the supreme court's decision in miller l and that is once a prosecutor in a batson context has failed to offer any reasons for the exercise of what appears facially to be a person discriminatory challenge you can't go he started mutilating himself when he was represented with counsel that he did not want that he made it clear that he did not want you can't say that that prove ha i told you so that proves that this was just for purposes of delay it's too late his motion his rights have been taken away from him so you can't say that once his rights have been taken away from him let's let's let's decide let's foldback these these events that happened afterwards and see whether or not they are have any probative value as to whether before his rights were taken away he that he was acting for purposes of the like i think the proper answer to the question  yes the self mutilation shows may show that he wanted to lay but it doesn't show that he didn't want to represent himself as a record so that there was any delay come in to court and say we cannot proceed to trial on the state or whatever that means because my client has mutilated himself your honor i'm not familiar with that portion of the record to be quite candid i i can't speak that i do not believe that there was any delay because that is a general sort of conclusion from the record to get back to the question the judge bright put to me about whether you can you can sort of treat the june eleventh and granting of the motion in the june twelfth revocation of the rights as the same the answer is i don't believe you can and the reason is that once you've granted the rights it's quite clear that if the if if the holder of those rights acts to disrupt the court proceedings x to trails to  abide by the rules which is the condition of his rights being granted then you can revoke those rights there's nothing that says if you if you do the same thing that your counsel would have done i e asking for a continuance that indicates that you've well your honor i don't i don't believe that that is and i'm not sure i get the drift of it but i think that he was he was he was going forward with you know his his rights to represent himself and t experienced counsel but that doesn't mean that they're free if that were all that were required to justify the overturning of the right to suffer good afternoon i think there has been some confusion and i would like to simply clarify this very carefully on june eleventh the trial court granted this read a motion the trial court entertained three days worth of motions on this the trial court was being anything but impatient the trial court granted the motion then the very next day notwithstanding the fact that the trial court was attempting to do the right thing the trial court was attempting to abide by for rather the trial court realized page ninety nine of the excerpts of record the court asked the defendant well is there anything else that you feel that you need a continuance for the defendant yes see i have not had the opportunity to read all the papers that mr head has provided me as trial counsel for numerous reasons you know they have have been in this have been have had me in a strip cell for numerous weeks the court well the reason you are there is because of your own conduct the defendant correct the court is not right sir you can't you cannot you cannot blame the system for your behavior in other words as i understand it a couple of on a couple occasions you have attempted to injure yourself and as a result they have had to place you in a location where you could not continue your behavior isn't that correct somewhat yes and that's going to continue until your behavior changes is that right that is rights are ok so you cannot complain it is my well let me ask this question mr and the court goes on it's very clear what happens to the courts yes there was discussion of the strips all the previous day the discussion of the previous day there was the court was attempting to and to understand whether he satisfy forever whether he had the capacity to act as his own attorney and that was the that was the reason the strips all came up the would then he would not then he would then he would proceed to continue to maneuver to needle a himself he would not be prepared this case would not go to trial in sixty days what the court must remember is at this point in time they were proceeding against two different defendants jointly he was attempting to railroad these proceedings to mutilate himself to postpone the proceedings and and look at the record on page  that art court of appeal was objective leak unreasonable our court of appeal which quoted this language in its footnote ten that this language which is nowhere to be found in the r n r it cannot be said that that the court was objective leon reasonable in finding that he was attempting to delay the proceedings and that is the standard that mr pruitt would have to show he cannot do it thank