plea counsel we have this deferential standard under twenty two fifty four to the highest reason state court decision so i looked at it and it paid for twenty five in the he learned that the state would not seek the death penalty against cable and he communicated this information directly to cable at no time did counsel state or implied that if to go once a trial he would receive the death penalty to the extent  testimony draws any of these findings into question his testimony is not credible so it looks to me as though we have to accept the fact that he goes flying his lawyer told him the death penalty is off the table or rather his lawyer never told him that if you want to trial he would receive the death penalty and that the state wasn't seeking the death penalty in my mistaken in thinking we have to take that as a given and if i'm not mistaken where do undermines that well there are two facts found by the state court that are not supported by the record first the state court found at no time did counsel state or imply that if cable went to trial he would receive the death cable was told that the death penalty was an option and that the state may be seeking in fact be seeking the death penalty so the state court finding is completely contrary to mr hall's uncontroverted testimony  about this exchange and i'm quoting from your three ninety prior to the entry of mr cable's plea you were confident that he knew the death penalty was not a possibility in this case calls you answer record mr hall said his testimony about how this information was relayed was he didn't recall whether or way our but we would have let him now th testimony we would have let him now and that is the only information that we have that there was any kind of communication to mr cagle well here's here's another quote and i'm quoting and that's by virtue of the fact that there's a gap there you can assume means the prosecutor have not filed the notice of intent to see you had talked to the prosecutor about seeking it and he said no when you less than clear about communicating that the death penalty was off the table but in other parts of his testimony it was clear that he did know that did understand in communicated that understanding from his point what's wrong with the trial court making the factual finding that even in the things of that kind of inconsistent that finding however i don't think that that is the case that we have here mr hall has no clear recollection of what mr cagle have four different lawyers on this case from the washoe county public defender's office and i don't think this  discussion about how that was communicated i don't know whether or way we would have told this is particularly in light of the fact that there is no written communication there is plenty of correspondence in this case and it's never been used to writing they don't have any memo or any specific recollection of the readers or a criminal defendant so i rarely wrote the letters except when i felt the need to protect myself in such a way because they weren't big was an ev very important fact to now for mr cain call and he continued under the i'm i'm thinking just in the natural course of things a lawyer would communicate orally the death penalty would come up a lot at the beginning of the case and then there would probably be multiple communications don't worry about it it's off the table at each step when it looked like it was going off the table and then when the notice to seek it wasn't filed on time don't worry about it it's gone probably cagle and still be hearing all kinds of stuff from the jail because they always do when it's a lawyer mentioned here in the transcript that he kept picking stuff up in the jail  so with multiple oral communications like that i mean that's a lot to remember exactly when you told them and what words you use yes but there was no testimony and there were multiple communications about that in fact steve gregory said he never talked to mr  fact pointed out the portion of the record for which judge green as the finder of fact in the state evidentiary hearing could make the findings of fact that he in fact did make with respect to the communications about the death penalty additionally and this is just as important i argued this in my brief are the negative influences there can be drawn from mr cagle actions in this case these actions are certainly happens if mr cable did in fact think he page eleven through page two fourteen of the acts of the record but there are three options that mr cagle is facing life without the possibility of parole life with the possibility of parole or a twenty to fifty year to terminate sentence and that all of three penalties the word there is not and that in fact there's an interim any asian where was scratched out because the two theories the case with originally charged were both as both willfully intentionally etc and also under nevada hearings and then we didn't hear about it thereafter and in fact there was an arraignment where mr cagle pleaded not guilty because they were going to do some pretrial rick practice in the nevada state court that there were no threats made i have a loud voice i apologize that there are no threats were made you would have thought it was that well well yes that was what i was told that if i didn't plead guilty they were going to seek the death penalty you would have thought he would have spoken up at his arraignment and  logic but but also go back and we're looking at this case in the prism of looking into the past as to what mr cagle objective we believe the other curious fact about this case is th but you would have been you would think your honor that if mister cagle was in prison going well gee i should have been in prison the first thing out of his mouth would be i'm in prison because i said i'm going to try to kill me it wouldn't be i'm in prison because his ruling should be affirm trial thank you