we believe that the evidence that was before the washington courts as well as the legal analysis applied by the washing course they were entitled to conclude as they did that mr lambert's guilty plea was a voluntary one and that counsel provided effective assistance during the trial court proceedings and grant county superior court and we also believe that the district court committed errors under section twenty two fifty four v specifically section twenty two fifty forty one and the two as well as s twenty two fifty four he won with respect to the district court's error under section twenty two fifty forty one it is clear that the district court was applying the now rejected clear error standard from this court's decisions will be conducting going over review anyway i believe that the error can be corrected by this court without requiring a reminder of the district court the other errors though are a little more complicated for example the section twenty two fifty four d truman error if you recall in the district court's decision when it cited two section twenty two fifty four do you do and i'm referring to the published decision lambert such second that ninety seven the district court omitted a key phrase for section twenty two fifty forty two and that is that the state court's decision is to be measured in light of the evidence presented in the state several page decisions that they rendered and they clearly consider the claims that mr lambert put before them so because of that the district court was required to limit its review to what evidence was before the a hearing yesterday and i don't believe there's anything in either twenty two fifty forty two or three and twenty two under one and what circumstances then may federal district court conduct a hearing i believe it's limited by the  circumstances set out in session twenty two fifty four eat to your arms and that concern so that when the the evidence has not been developed in state court proceedings then it's not attributable to any fault that would be the limitations on the other definitely not whether the evidence hasn't been fully developed when washington didn't conduct its own evidentially hearings how do we how do we know how do we know whether the evidence has been developed or not in a guilty one of them being or actually a few of them being defects or alleged defects in the state court process congress eliminated that in one thousand nine hundred six so there is no provision to determine that a state court decision is their opportunity to develop the record to submit whatever declarations affidavits reports other information evidence in support of their clients to the court gave grant leave to mr lambert to conduct discovery and i was the attorney expert for lack of a better term and professor david berner who provided a declaration on the subject of conflict of interest and there were other declarations they escaped my mind at this point but i think those were the ones that the most attention was focused upon obviously the court also had access to the entire transcript of the guilty plea proceedings as well as the sentencing based upon the evidence that was before the state courts there could have been no other conclusion that the court could reasonably have reached other than mr lambert's guilty plea was a voluntary knowing and intelligent one and that he was well aware of the  really the issue of the case the issue is no one voluntary intelligent waiver of his right to go to trial it's not whether it was why is whether it was beneficial to him just did he know what he was doing this was his idea m idea to plead guilty this is not something that callous will beat him up in the doing or or told him that he should do this was something that originated with mr lambert and all  without really understanding without reading them literally and doesn't mr romero have an obligation to explain to him and to make sure that he understands that they really mean literally what they what they mean we've given out my senses for years in this country without people ever note that has been brought to everyone's attention excerpted record one ten which prompted the change of plea or was one of the factors prompting the change plea preceded everything that that we've discussed to this point lambert went over the written statement of decision the defendant on the guilty plea word for word and mr lambert read it aloud and i think that there are at least four or five references in that document to life without the possibility of parole doesn't say anything about twenty years or anything like that says there if there's never any is there any place in the record where the judge says i want you to understand that when i say life now prole it means that you don't get it but you're going to spend the rest of your days in jail and there's no possibility whatsoever that you're ever coming out i think there are to your honor one that is during the course of the colloquy with mr lambert and the judge  line pointed out that there was one of the spots on the written statement of defender and guilty plea that did not retain to mr lambert's case and that was the paragraph pertaining to run community placement be expected to do what more could he have been expected to say and how much clearer could it have been according to mr lambert no matter what anybody said he would have believed that life without parole equal something other than that court proceedings that we believe was the basis for the district court's error it was you're going about two minutes we want to reserve yes i do your honor thank you not a case where case where sixteen year old donald lambert who completed only eighth grade and had a lawyer who did not plan to begin investigating the state's witnesses until action after they actually testified it's a case where the lawyer did not hire an there's anything anyone as what what what more was the washington court of appeals obligated to do here i don't think it's every case i think in this case there was enough of the showing that hearing was required and what we did but the washington court of appeals did allow mr lambert to bring into barge proceeding against him by my understanding has to do with requests for money and questions for me any more questions while you're there was never in and you said that's not right or anything and this is one of those cases those rare cases where we are having to look outside the record of theirs and we can see credible mr lambert's testimony that throughout the course of his representation he met with his lawyer less than fifteen times no more than fifteen to twenty minutes per meeting with one exception and where they viewed videotape  addition you have a well string state report that's based on an interview with mr lambert from months before the plea where it's clear that he has no understanding of the possible consequences he faces as a result of  trial similarly we have the note that we've been talking around which indicates that the time the court took a lawyer he did not understand what he was pleading to when the consequences of that plea so this is one of those cases where there's significant evidence not just that the defendant subjective understanding in a year  that he faced during the same timeframe not years later not during the summer of two thousand and two when he's testifying before a federal judge but back in one thousand nine hundred seventy first this excerpt of record ninety five the letter that mr lambert wrote to doubt this was before trial before the case was going to be heard in december he objected that he he wanted the death penalty because he didn't want to go away to prison for the rest of his life he didn't want to  in a prison cell he would prefer to get a death sentence in december of one thousand nine hundred ninety seven shortly after mr lambert was found guilty shortly after his guilty plea and it was in december it wasn't months later it was within two weeks because it was received by december twenty fourth of one thousand nine hundred seven the taunting letter that mr lambert wrote to mr no doubt where he said mr noel was the prosecutor for grant county mr nadal you can look at that look in the mirror and smile and be happy to know that you sent this sixteen year old kid to prison for the rest of his life not twenty years not life and i'll be eligible for parole sometime in the near future nothing like that for the rest of my life just like that that literally that's that is what those words stay the course he did write my stetson but might never let the thought that it was a possibility of parole but that wouldn't be he knows that he's being sent to prison for the rest of his life that he understands that it's going to be the remainder of his years on earth that he will not walk the free man that he will always be with in prison i think even a sixteen year old understands that and frankly were infantilizing mr lambert by assuming that he had such an unsophisticated understanding of the criminal justice system he was a veteran of the system he was at the time that he was arrested in connection with he had been not released on a charge of resisting arrest he was also required to register as a sex offender because of a prior sex offense that he had been involved in so he was familiar with the criminal justice system plus the prize he pled