morning your honor benjamin ramos on behalf of petitioner matthew white may please the court your i don't have a lot of new comments to add to the briefs i would i would point out however that it's worth considering that both the magistrate judge and the district court found that the california supreme court's denial of behaviors petition was unreasonable based on the gaps and inconsistent inconsistency in the record so that opens the door to mr white under section twenty two fifty four d two based on that unreasonable determination of facts by the california supreme court having gotten through that door and reviewing the case again without deference to the state court decision i think it's clear that mr white received ineffective assistance of counsel in this case and the california supreme court's denial of that was contrary to or on reasonable application of u s supreme court precedents under laugh where rick be cooper and missouri so you know even assuming factual findings essentially discrediting or not believe mr white's lawyers testimony at the evidentiary hearing and those factual findings for us are because the magistrate's decision completely failed to analyze the case considering all the charges that mr white was facing a trial the magistrate analyzed the cases if the only charge had been the second degree murder and so if you look at the case only in relation to second degree murder charge the analysis has has facial reasonable miss i would say but when you look at all the other charges that were not considered by the magistrate you have to say well what were the implications of going to trial and facing all these other non murder charges under a failed trial strategy that basically mr white had until the next court date to accept the offer there's nothing in the record clearly indicating that mr white ever said no to the offer there's enough and more importantly i think there's and this was also not addressed by the magistrate there's believe some of the testimony and not to believe other of the testimony and so what all i hear you saying is that the except trial counsel's representation of what occurred would mean believing that mr white was ok with a trial strategy under which he would admit he's guilty of all the charges except they're going to be murder but he had argument made before the magistrate yet it was made yes in the in the objections to the findings and recommendations that is when it first came up that argument but that it was not brought up specifically in the evidentiary hearing but mr w got a much worse result by going to trial that he would have had he accepted the offer and if he had been advised he obviously would have accepted the offer so there's no there's it's incomprehensible how he could have had a magistrate could find that he wanted to go to trial he wanted to say no to the offer when going to trial meant a sentence three years longer than the offer that was made there's just no accounting for that discrepancy and that was i spent a lot of time on that in the briefs but  magistrate just did not have address the implications of all the non murder charges in relation to the offer because if he if you accepted the offer then he would avoid that much more harsh result at trial but it's just inconceivable that mr white would have had he been properly advised would have said no to that offer magistrate held the hearing saw the witnesses made credibility determinations the advisement issue before the evidence your hearing was all about whether the appellant had ever heard the ten year offer or not about how much advice he received about the ten year offer indeed at the hearing the appellant testified i never heard a ten year offer nobody ever told me about the ten year offer  so if the issue is going to morph into i should have gotten better advice about the ten year offer that that's not really an issue that was raised below and it's it's a little disingenuous to make that argument if you if you're maintaining that you never heard a ten year offer maybe you just clarify one thing for me yes so there was there was evidence there was a ten year offer with the prior lawyer the petitioner only testified that the prior lawyer conveyed to him a ten year offer with fifty percent credits which as an aside cuts in favor of the fact that he was not going to take an offer he wanted to go to trial and convince the jury that he was the ten year offer you're talking about when platt when platt began to represent when platt was there and the only evidence that a ten year offer was made with a previous defense attorney was the petitioners testimony the prosecutor and platt both testified that it was an eight to eight year eight month offer that was made to the prior attorney none of the attorneys remember a ten year offer being made to was many conversations with many different attorneys and among themselves and depositions and later this evidence you're hearing and so there was some ambiguity there were plants testimony often delved into this is my common practice this is what i remember and they merged and weaved in and out the district court recognized all that at the excerpts of record page ninety four and footnote ten of that internal document the district court recognized that platts testimony was not the consistencies are not enough to overturn those findings i'd love to answer any other questions ok thank you thank you honor the district court specifically ordered the magistrate to determine whether the advice that trial counsel provided was adequate under laughter recoup or and leffler recoup or in compass as all the obligations of trial coun to provide competent of ice to would defend it when he's considering a plea bargain offer so it's not disingenuous to consider the sort of advice that mr platt provided or didn't provide that's really the key issue in the case platt provide effective advice in regard to that ten year offer and the entire record is basically barren of facts that that can establish that he did he doesn't remember anything he had he went through an evidentiary hearing in a deposition and was in unable to recall anything about the tenure offers can't recall what he had vice he gave to mr white can and can't remember telling mr white here's the trial strategy i'm going to stipulate your blood alcohol level at twice the legal limit you're going to be convicted of all the dui charges you're going to be i'm going to argue that you're guilty of vehicular manslaughter and that the punishment for all these charges and the enhance three years each consecutive so you have three victims you get you're going to trial this is our strategy you're going to get three great bodily injury hansen's nine years you're going to be convicted of manslaughter because it already stipulated to your blood alcohol level that's another four years minimum you could actually be more than that but minimum you're now you're thirteen years so mr white this is our trial section will go to trial and you get thirteen years in prison or you can take the ten year offer which one do you want and we're supposed to believe that mr white said i like that trial strategy mr and mr platt i'll agree to stipulate to my guilt on all the charges because what i really want to do is fight the second degree murder charge that i can't beat because all the evidence is overwhelming but don't i'll go along with your strategy and that's what we're expected to believe and it's just preposterous there's nothing on the record to show that mr white received effective consultation and advice regarding the prosecution's ten year offer and because of that  received ineffective assistance of counsel he went to trial under this disastrous trial strategy and you just read the trial sprint transcript and wonder what why did it go to what's what benefit at all did mr white get by going to  trial he admits his guilt on everything he testifies and makes it even worse says he was drunk or that he thought any was weaving and swerving and he just it's just a disaster and you have to wonder if this was all mr white's idea you want to do i mean it doesn't make any sense so the on the inferences from what happened at trial and the refusal of the ten year offer are that mr white was not advised that this is the certain consequence rejecting offer thirteen year sentence maybe more and i actually left out of the brief there were great bodily injury and handsomeness which were three years so if you tek those on he could have been looking at a sixteen year sentence guaranteed going to trial because there was no defense to any of the charges except the second degree murder charge but why would he fight that while we fight a murder case when he could get ten years with half time so looking at the record it's clear that mr white was not effectively advised counsel has an obligation to advise him regarding the strengths and weaknesses of the offer he has an obligation to advise him regarding trial strategy the strengths and weaknesses of the case and that that occurred and what's interesting the