the amount of time that this court is satisfied with its argument today twenty minutes is the same amount of time that my client had to review the final version of the briton guilty plea and his case in that twenty minutes he was under extreme pressure he was seventeen at the time sixteen at the time he committed the offense he was in mature scared to death literally because he believed he was choosing between life and death at that moment and this here was reinforced by attorneys under this pressure he asked for more time and which time his attorney simply turned up the pressure they told him that four hundred jurors had to be called that day to cancel the trial and the victim didn't have time to decide time yesterday i read the group clearly playground and the minute information line by line it took me twelve minutes that's without any time for questions and it's time for explanation of the charges and there was a new charge in this amended information that he had never seen before which is the kidnapping charge that wasn't the focus of the charge obviously the murder was the most important but that alone was something new that he had never seen before although the guilty plea contains rights waiver a waiver of the sort of three big right to talk about why can't that those rights are not reviewed in the canvas and the guilty plea does not explain the minimum amount of time that my client had to sort of before he would be parole eligibility which was really his fundamental one of his fundamental misunderstanding about the penalty the consequences of this plea and perhaps most importantly night of the guilty plea nor the cameras that followed contain a factual basis for the  key because on the murder charge alone he was there were three theories the court really canvassed him on the premeditation theory but the evidence from claiming hearing strongly suggests that my client shot a dead body premeditated murder as the actual killer was unlikely to be a theory that convict him the other two theories aiding and abetted betting a first degree premeditated murder or conspiracy to commit premeditated murder testimony from the coroner who says he can't determine definitively which shots went in first but hypothetically he was asked the question if we knew that the gunshots went in before the sho clear exactly how much time passed but that he could be moaning for up to even after he was dead he could be found that would indicate somebody he didn't know this fact that he might be still alive and are not so easy to grasp and not so easy to prove and there's no evidence to the record that this minor understood what those theories were and when you go through the transcript of the guilty plea hearing the judge first focus really on the premeditation theory and then the da only adds that after that oh and by the way judge can you say something about eating and burying conspiracy because indicating that's really what we're getting hauser on and you haven't  we have here the convergence really of oh i can which is the main rule but also eighty five healey and now roker but he only was in effect at the time which is when you are dealing with a juvenile defendant who faces these deficit of an ability to act under pressure an ability to understand the consequences of their action and to process in that situation they don't press the stay with out when you have that kind of person with a diminished capacity if you look at the totality of the record as well as including the guilty plea agreement including the canvass short as it was from the court it does me but wait and standard the the the record is pretty clear that it was a while this was a relatively young defendant he was seventeen years old at the time and while his attorney at the evidentiary hearing rather unsophisticated the record is awful clear this was not his first time that he was in the criminal justice system he had already pleaded guilty in another case additionally his attorney mr christianson testified on a motion to withdraw the guilty plea that this had been a a case that they shot thought should be pled from the beginning now mr traum spent some time saying well it took me probably minutes to read the guilty plea agreement the problem with that your honor is that while there was a total of twenty minutes to discuss this guilty plea agreement if he is that first of all there is the testimony that was accepted that  was gone over line by line that mr that that mr hauser had the opportunity to discuss the case not only with his attorney but with his mother and that he got any gone through over a similar canvass going over similar right as you know he they point to new counsel and a new counsel prosecuted a motion to withdraw guilty plea they had a hearing in a state court these issues could have been developed in the state court and they weren't and now  there's a desire to well as litigated again let's ignore whatever happened in the state court and see if we can develop the record further and that's quite frankly not what i believe the purpose of the federal habeas statute is particularly when there is an opportunity and that's what the supreme court told us in the mornings retailer that if you have to develop the facts in the state court in the first instance only if the state prevents you from developing the facts are you are you entitled to try to develop the facts later on so you want to make it so the issue is to have a level of sophistication beyond what mr christianson testified to is something that could have been developed in the state court and was not my recollection i just noted it's not dated but it's from the trial attorneys file so i think it existed possibly shortly before a trial because you never had counsel after that seems unlikely that it would have happened after that and our office didn't do it lawyer he doesn't get a hearing this is all sort of done outside of the record in fact a district court that i'm not going to consider this and the supreme court said yes you should have considered this but well actually you doesn't make a difference to us i don't think that lawyer was appointed specifically to conduct that hearing but there's no evidence of the record that when the lawyer can fax that hearing that sort of a can and to ineffective assistance of counsel type of claim because he doesn't get the attorney doesn't necessarily get the psychological evaluation that would be in that attorney file to know what this person that this person has a low i q and he may or may not have been able to judge that i himself evidence that he has a low i q and so not only does he have a diminished capacity because of his juvenile status but he has one because he really doesn't track with going on because he has a low i i don't have evidence of what that process was but it's my understanding that when someone's appointed in that capacity it's not they don't have access to the entire file now whether request was made i haven't been able to divine that from the