general rule that says they have to be knowingly and voluntarily entered no question about that but the question i'm asking you is under this incredibly deferential standard of review you in ed don't we need to determine whether there exists a clearly established supreme court case addressing this particular form of participation by the trial court as coerced under constitutional i would be hard to find the supreme court case these days in which applying here where they say you have met the level that there is a clearly controlling supreme court holding  you have a general proposition about voluntariness but i think at least you may need at least this is one way to look at it but you may at least in the case dealing with judicial interfering with trial but they said we've never had a case where just an audience create year you have cases where prosecutors create unfair confessions but you don't have a case where a judge is less than one can roll along between outside influences  i have a lot of appeal but if the purpose of head is to restrict constitutional rights and limit the ability of federal courts to protect people whose rights have been violated  then you're probably going to lose clear was it that he would or would not get the maximum penalty if you want to trial where this where the state sentencing statute such that the judge was sort of making more of a prediction than a threat or was it clearly a threat it was clearly a threat by that the judge had discretion there was certainly a lot of room to play in that it was not it was not like a mandatory minimum is within federal court judge a wide range of discretion your honors may have please the court robert foster deputy attorney general for the respondent judge tom i think it's the nail on the head which is he has to show it's concrete to clearly establish supreme court authority and he hasn't done that to simply say of the you can't be co because you've been in state prison three times it's going to be very easy to justify maxing you out that's the excerpt of the record forty five after that he says and you know if you're convicted what you're going to get eleven years eight months he's giving him that's that's what the me through how your california law the judge would get to eleven years and eight months with his background yes your honor he had it was charged with ten eight fifty one he has a prior strike so it's a three year term for the ten eight fifty one double because of the prior strike that's assuming he gives them the upper term on the twenty fifty one he has a concrete secular sixteen month term on the receiving stolen property and your honor he could have picked the middle term on the ten and fifty one and doubled it he could have still struck the one year priors or found them not through any could have given him a concurrent sentence on the stolen property rather than consecutive looking you are correct that this conduct in federal court would not be allowed but it is allowed in state court we've cited you the cases allow giving an indicated sentence seems to me this happens in every plea bargain situation of has an offer from the prosecution in this case from the court and he's always saying to himself or herself what's my maximum exposure what's going to happen to me if i don't take this offer and it's going to say this is the maximum that all of these things have to be proven if there was to see if the jury wants him if you're convicted now you have to prove what if you go to trial and lose so he's giving him the forecast of what will happen for months to help me with this that while it's six years is what the best deal that he could have hoped for then given the statutory provisions what could the judge had  and that's the flaw of helen's argument i think the second flaws are trying to articulate the u s that this wasn't coercive given the totality of the circumstances he had months to think about this he was trying to put things off i assume trying to convert state prison prelim the officer one of the officers didn't see his face as he drove by but under the took the circumstances where he steals the truck they catch him having fled from the truck and they told perpetrator identifies him i think was a strong case what the judge did really think it's back to judge wright's question which is is there a difference between the threat being made by the prosecutor versus the you digital officer and then we're back to the question of whether there's a supreme court case out there that says it makes a difference