suppression motion never he never moved to continue he wasn't prepared the earlier decision of this court said the council had a responsibility to prepare and seek a continuance if time is too short while we learn from the evidence are hearing here who will be ready for trial when this matter is that edwards will be your lawyer judge reels that the case was that it's going to go on that date come hell or highwater this case is going out on the day that  the tools he has but as judge pleasure indicated your honor that kept any counsel should have most of the facts should have realized that a motion to suppress was something that a reasonably competent lawyer service a warrant will stop there's a search without the search warrant there's there are all these legal reasons as to why a lawyer would analyze the reasons for that stuff the police just can't come up to you and stop don't think anything that he says can be trusted but if we have the situation that you're proposing i think the attorney has an independent obligation to examine the facts i think the attorney should look at that this government if there are witnesses if there's an obligation to go out and investigate and talk to those witnesses in this case it was very clear that any competent counsel with you know the way that this case got into state court there would be i transcript yes absolutely i think in attorney has a sixth amendment under the sixth amendment an attorney has an obligation to conduct a reasonable investigation of the facts of the case in this case a reasonable explanation of the clear that he did next to nothing in this case and i think the point of best example of that is really the chronology as to what happened before the sentencing hearing the sentencing hearing was scheduled for monday august  ninth obtained the pre sentence report possibly on august thirteenth an august fifteenth which is a thursday he wrote a letter to his client think here's the p s i i if you have any problems i'll talk about it next week well next week was going to be monday when the hearing was there was just nothing done to prepare for trial or for sentencing and i think and given the courtroom dynamics given what it's like to be someone who's trying to make their points on your own talking to the court trying to say look my lawyer hasn't done anything my lawyer is unprepared i think les actually did an admirable job of making his points this isn't a case where he was  wing someone he was saying hold on here this is going to fast i need a lawyer i need a lawyer who's going to look at things and edwards directly undermined what bliss was saying and direct and edwards undermined what blis have any arguments to make because the government's argument he would have gotten life with me yes but it would have been it would have been reversed the effectively got life anyways he got four hundred twenty months he's not going to he's not going to get out of prison alive so when you look at how much time that he got in custody he didn't get anything by pleading guilty and that's another thing that shows how ineffective the assistance was because the record looks as if there was some sort of offer out there for twenty eight years which is a lot less than four hundred twenty months but he didn't but he got more because he didn't accept responsibility because he tried to explain to just what the problems were because he kept telling the court my counsel hasn't prepared he hasn't at the motions he hasn't done anything so i don't think he was being sophisticated i don't think he was manipulating the system i think he was trying to be as respectful as he possibly put it if you look at the transcripts of the three court hearings if you look at the letter that he waiver of your right to trial it's a waiver of your right to stand and plead not guilty to so to waive the rights that are part of the very concept you must have a knowing and intelligent waiver of those rights and in this country under our system to knowingly and intelligently waive your right to trial your trial rights to comply cross examined with this is your right against self incrimination you have to be counsel to do that and in this pace there was not annoying be an interesting question and that's not something that i was prepared to address at this point but obviously that's a danger when you get in a situation like this the danger for us to say he's part of your new trial when he said w advise him to plead guilty he decided that himself and it's sort of a gross of a dilemma here even admitting for the purpose of argument without conceding that he had ineffective assistance under six hearing those arguments all the time i mean that's not an uncommon argument i think lawyers i think judges do hear those are games all the time but i do think thirty five days for someone who's effectively looking at a life case when the case has been going on in state court for nine months when there had been a three day evidentiary hearing in state court when there was a real most of surprise when there was an issue for the fingerprints when there are forensic issues when their preparation for trial is used i think that some preparation has to be done and that wasn't done that wasn't done here and i do think that if the lawyer had come up to judge real and helpless make the record which he had an obligation to do things that were not prepared which he admits that there was a most is a process i don't have the transcripts which are true that we can't go to trial because i'm not prepared so please continue the case so that one my client isn't forced into an unconstitutional choice so he can make a voluntary decision we wouldn't be standing here today thinking i'd like reserve two cooperate with his appointed counsel the judge would not grant a continuance that would allow detain counsel to come then and so when the defendant found the data file without his retained counsel he was hoping to have he made a strategic choice to plead guilty rather than go to t circumstances but how about the situation that they let me on the bench showing that the fence counsel was totally unprepared to go to trial to do any investigation never read the state court record all the quality in front of judge we'll call if we end up being on july second which was the day of trial they tried that here on june twenty sixth and the purpose of that was intended to be a change of pleas hearing what ended up happening on june of the hearing on remand back to judge real and mr edwards i didn't count so i don't recall how many times twenty five times thirty times  wasn't doing his job he did say case to the best of his ability under the circumstances and he would have done more had his client participated with him i would like to turn to the to the voluntariness of the guilty plea because ultimately that is the issue and whatever complaints count you know to the time i had about his clients performance ultimately the question is what is going to involuntary as a result and here we have a record that show to give him time to think about it and their client defendant did in fact represent to the court under penalty of perjury that he spoke was monetary that he was pleading guilty because he was guilty and because he was guilty  basically you know what happened here was that a defendant put all his eggs in the private lawyer basket when that fell through and he made a strategic choice that it was better for him at this point to plead guilty that the records show that he had the and his testimony at the remembrance says well you know i never did get a chance to tell judge we'll at that point that i wasn't prepared he says i wasn't told him but then i quite pled not it sounds to me as though i've got a clear conflict of interest between mr edwards and his client at that point because somebody who is truly representing mr bliss would have said your honor i am not prepared but mr ebbers never said that well and if you had a lawyer representing him mr bliss would have asked it was ok are you prepared and was would have been forced to say no i would say know there's a lot of things he does not recall including when we had a conference well there are things he doesn't recall many years after the fact but he has been forthcoming about the relationship between him and his client and what he said about that is that his client you and after he had made those allegations either the change of play or at the sentencing hearing there was no sort of bitterness there was no animosity that would have created a conflict in the allegations themselves are something not of the sort that would give rise to a conflict of interest  says he was actually much more focused on getting the other lawyer but he does make references to it being too late and honest then and yet the guilty plea on july second he did yes it was true that mr bliss wouldn't talk to him and the reason i'm so strong upon that if that was true when you look at his crime file there aren't any entries in his crime file that list refused to talk to him there isn't any communicate to the attention to the court and there was it's my recollection of the testimony of the hearing on the remains that when mr allison testified about that he believed that he had been retained that he had called the clerk i think the judge ryall actually had a recollection of that but the transfer the transcript speaks for itself on that and when you look at the transcript of the plea to mr bliss and therefore since i was unable to get this