counsel and i'd like to focus on the ineffective assistance claim first the state court so called findings well field has never had a proper evidence to hearing on these claims and this court state courts so called findings on this investigative if i look at the ineffective assistance claim it looks like what this defense was that he wanted his lawyer to do something with was that here deals with these women he's given a crack they give him sex he gave them  he made at sentencing in his postcondition petition he alleged that he pled guilty because his attorney told him that he was a black man accused of raping white women and that was the end of the investigation that he didn't need to know anything and he attached race a lot of times a factor in our society and attorney he had more charges than he pled guilty to correct me to our right and yes you know anyone that has spent any time in a courtroom to say that maybe the race of the witnesses the race of the parties or in these type of cases might not be a factor i mean wouldn't i mention then returning to discuss that with your client it's fine for an attorney to discuss that but when the investigation of the victim and the investigation of the perpetrator or the accused only what is there really is that is not investigation and how can you know when he admitted everything at the admitted the facts that are necessary for a rape how can he show that he would have prevailed at a trial when in fact you know based on what you're presented with he's not required to show that he will prevail at the trial he would have required to show that his counsel's performance fell below and he was standard and that it would have made a difference in the outcome of his either would have chosen to go to trial or he could have gotten a better plea deal and under strickland every decision not to investigate must be directly assessed for reasonableness so the attorney has an obligation to d throw in the race and tell them you're wasting your time because you're black and plead out without telling them anything more investigating further well what we do know is that feels alleged i think you're right to say we don't know what the attorney didn't why don't we know what the attorney did there was never any affidavit any testimony from the attorney any reason proffered by the attorney as to where or why the investigation was not and that there was prejudice and then if you go forward from there we have to determine whether the state court on reasonably wide one which is an additional barrier when not up to that yet i'm  rape case and would have changed the calculus of going to trial why because if you couldn't take it there's to start with for purposes of argument that these women are wives and  very poor character and that any competent attorney could show that they're liars and very character well if they're lying about one thing then they may be lying about a lot of other things they leave you lying about their relationship with the defendant be lying about the circumstances of why they were with him and what they were doing with them and whether they were there voluntarily they may be lying about whether or not it was against their will whether they agreed to have sex with them with him one of the witnesses for example she said that she was taken to his apartment by force in the primary hearing but in fact she got out of the car and she didn't drive away she waited around for him i mean there are things here that could have been exposed with investigation and police and exposing these women and having causing a mental problem but it's just the other question i have about thorazine it's commonly prescribed for schizophrenia and it doesn't cause to get suffering it relieves schizophrenia as long as people are on the page two hundred of the record that he told his counsel that he couldn't understand what was being read to him in the guilty plea that this council told him to just say yes to everything anyway because it wasn't important what was an evidentiary hearing then she says well you know i went ahead and got those records myself that and uses them against felix the records actually confirm that he was on these drugs so that at least creates the controverted issue in terms of all of this happened in violation of state law and those findings deserve no deference my client is entitled to once and for all have an end to hearing on these issues so that he can prove them up so i'm going to reserve certain sophistication that comes to dealing with the legal system he confirms that he's got fourteen years of education so that's two more beyond high school as i understand it so he's able to present pleadings to the court and for it for example when it comes to the questioning or the questions about his competence that was never a question the only time that's ever raised is when he files a state post conviction action he changes his guilty plea admits to three counts for which he gets a great benefit he's facing twenty five counts it cross down to three he has a chance to get out of prison by accepting this clear bargain you know if we're talking about otherwise affected his ability to think he doesn't do that so more than a year after he sentenced did he say whether he had told his lawyer at the time he makes that that would be fifteen seventeen and eighteen so he's clearly able to take your of his legal affairs he wants to represent himself and he's able to represent himself so he's competent and that was cracked and this is mental illness and i don't think that there was any question that he was competent and that's what the state just records found that's two thirty two hundred thirty now competence i want that is the defendant able to understand what's going on and to assist in his defense and i think if you look at the transcripts if you look at the motions that he's filed that this is a man who is confident and if he is times to kind of medications in jail and add he was suffering from the adverse and lingering effects of that medication now there is a factual issue issue here which is the problem and i don't think that we can resolve this or that you can resolve this from the bench which is what was  fields versus crawford is submitted