or first of all it had to do with the documents that the state was able to obtain to show that there had been a conviction and primarily that relied on the california abstracted judgment which there  is not reliable and cannot be relied on to to determine priors there is also because what was really an issue here was not the actual conviction for the involuntary manslaughter but the two state count basically two of so are the lesser crimes into the greater crime in the end the purpose for it is to make sure that some of that on the one hand that that people can be has to be exactly the same in every element in the lesser crime including the victim has to be included in the the greater time in california law that isn't under six fifty four and here's the question a number of victims is is important but not control that there are cases with multiple convictions where it is found to have to apply and this was one of those cases where in fact it was the prosecutor who suggested at sentencing according to the transcript that sixty four should apply to the to the to assault charges that is what that is what happened then later there was an attempt to have m of the prior judicial record that there was only a conviction for manslaughter the court in our trial had to go behind that judicial determination to parse out the two state account  packet from each case which included for the nine hundred seventy five names of probation officers report recommendation various deals to the records and and other documents similar documents in the one nine hundred eighty five case although i believe there was even another murder the murder lies different but also what is different is the is the three strikes law in california the judge has discretion in washington the judge has no discretion discretion in california parole is not available there's a much broader choice of what what are strikes in california and then in washington and so we are comparing apples and oranges  still has not clarified what is a fact of a prior conviction although petitioner asked this court to expand on that ruling the u s supreme court has not really clarified in a constitutional holding what is the holding of the court clearly indicated that the constitutional issues was not actually before the court so it is not clearly established federal law on this constitutional issue the there seems to be confusion over what was being compared by the state trial court in determining the sentence in the state trial court and before the state supreme court there was not a dispute that the elements of the one nine hundred seventy five  comparable to strifes in washington the only issue in dispute was whether the state made it not a conviction or whether the stay still allowed the convictions to be counted the strike hundred seventy five assault convictions only one of them needed to be a strike they were both right the only one of them needed to be a strike qualifies a third strike one of them was a california conviction for assault with a deadly weapon that matches exactly assault on the second degree in washington and california says any person who commits assault upon another person with a deadly weapon that's watching two forty five the california recall washington's assault second under circumstances not amounting to first degree assault assaults another with a deadly weapon it's an exact match of the elements it is a strike there was no no question of fact that needed to be presented to the jury on the full faith and credit were who the victims were and what their relationship was to each other and that's just one example of the elements that were issue in deciding whether these counts did count as convictions or not