very overworked counsel of public defender could prepare for mr a lander's second trial on this count of assault with a deadly weapon secondly the california court of appeals misapplied an issue to decision contrary to read up when it held at mr lander's motion to represent himself the trial was improperly denied but then apply a standard of harmless error to that issue for read it is very clear that harmless error analysis does not apply to an improper denial of the motion for self representation at trial i want to go to the for red issue first this court must defer district judge in his findings in conclusion states that mr landor made this request after four witnesses have testified that's incorrect and the court of appeals opinion in the in the state court actually gets it right mr landor made his his request after the first witness testified who was the complainant i have included that transcript in the excerpts record so mr landor made his quest for earlier than is indicated in the district judges and some of this court's recent cases interpret ng for retta marshall the taylor and i'm sorry the second case suggested that this court should revisit the issue of timeliness of a forever request and make a finding contrary to what the state court judge did which in that case vanderlyn made her request for self representation three weeks into her trial and then the court struggled with the issue but then initially decided to allow her to represent herself on he is review just as in this case one hundred twenty to fifty four the government suggested that this court should revisit that issue find that she was on timely and find no constitutional error and this court emphasized that that's not this court's role on federal he views review of a state court judgment that think that this court should not  claim we would have to say that it's an unreasonable application of well established supreme court and the under reasonable miss in this case lies in the application of a harmless error analysis first of all and that is quite clear for red it could not be more clear and then hope that the determination of timeliness was an unreasonable untimely this was an unreasonable application of well established supreme court and my response to that would be that the state court did not find that mr allen jer's the last reason state court decision which is what this court must look to instate heavey is the last recent state court decision concedes that that was an error finding that untimely or rejecting it at in the way that the trial court did was an error so there isn't an issue here with respect that it's just not there that will get you to hold the contrary to arguments here your time is running out you haven't touched the other issue that you want to touch on the others and i do wish to touch on the other issue but i just quickly point i think there's two contrary to arguments here one is the application of harmless error where it's very clear infrared of that that shouldn't happen and secondly that the core holding up or read is that the that the legal skills of the the defendant make such a request for self representation are not relevant and in this case the court of appeals very justified request by trial counsel for a couple of extra days for him to contact witnesses review the transcript of the first jury trial in this case reconcile and examine the inconsisten testimony of ten different witnesses who trial counsel pointed out or potential witnesses the trial and also to confer most importantly with mr landor it's clear from the record the trial counsel only met briefly  landor on two occasions and even primarily to talk with him about the timing problems by the time he got to the morning of trial mr owner was desperate had not had a meaningful conference with his new attorney at all had  trying to retain other counsel but was unsuccessful in doing so his primary issue as he explained to the judge was my own lawyer is telling me he's not prepared and can't try the case this is not the lawyers fault but the trial judge should have listened and given some consideration to the fact that this lawyer was overworked was telling the judge i have many other cases scheduled it appeared to be back to back for trial he was in preliminary hearings judge gave him two extra days where pointed out trial counsel in his arguments that he was going to be in preliminary hearings on other cases during those days so there was no time to prepare mr lander's case for trial and under the circumstances this is making a difference that there was no time we were here your honor i don't think that it does and i examine that issue the last day for trial would have been depending on whose estimate you go with and the record february fifth or february seventh and the trial counsel offered repeatedly two dates that were within that time during which he would have had enough time to be prepared for the trial judge insisted on going forward on january fourteenth two thousand and trial counsel  an alternative january twenty fourth which was well within that time period so it was a matter of days that he needed to do this additional work it would not have did not require mr landor to waive his speedy trial rights in order to do that and also trial counsel suggested a couple times to the judge you can override this state court speedy trial because the right to counsel is is predominant in that context in the trial judge certainly had the option under was prejudice because a review of the record shows that counsel was making serious errors throughout the trial he believed he was so feuding and questioning one detective when he was actually talking to another one he tried to cross is absolutely no basis for a finding that the state appellate court unreasonably apply threating in determining that appellant request was untimely there is simply no basis for the ever been clearly established supreme court precedent that dictates the manner in which a trial judge must state reasons to deny him a trial request that is purely a creature of state law in this case a case called people versus rivers that case does say that in denying a place for representation a trial judge should make a record that indicates it's consideration of various factors is weighing that request to taste doesn't purport to be applying federal law or six absolutely not your honor absolutely not it is not now and has never been a matter of clearly established federal supreme court president that a trial judge must state his reasons error is perhaps understandable given his posture but it is not a matter of the federal constitutional law you read the state court of appeal is only looking at state law  do we go one court lower down and say what was the trial court ruling with forever represented to the trial court he had enough time he was prepared to go a two day continuance was sufficient furthermore it's important to note that the trial court was hamstrung in its ability to provide more time or a longer continuance because there was simply no available times within its court docket the court repeatedly in three separate in three separate hearings expressed a trial court that there was simply no other available dates under which this trial could take place in fact the said it had you jump another jury trial unquote in order to make space for parents trial within the sixty days that's right time period helen had chosen to weigh that time period it obviously would have been much easier and much simpler matter to schedule penance continuing refusal to do so hamstrung the trial court and gave them no reasonable options to give a continuance so under those circumstances we can say that the state appellate court unreasonably unreasonably applied slappy when it determine the trial court acted within its within its discretion if there are any further questions i'm happy to answer them otherwise i would  that at that date was fine is taken i don't really out of context before during and after that entire colloquy trial counsel had been protesting in detail that he absolutely could not be ready for trial he said that's fine in the context of receiving