suffered from severe mental delusions between two thousand and four and two thousand and eight his specific delusions included beliefs that his wife had a microchip in her stomach that sent signals to men to come have sex with her and that his former boss the victim in this case was having an affair with this waif and talked to him through the radio and the television the kind do it this way and i hope you organize your argument where that will be helpful to me we've got two possible claims here one is that the trial judge should have seen that there were mental problems and then should shoeless upon table ordered an examination to determine competency to stand trial but whether that claims any good depends on what that judge knew at that time there is another possible claim in that is retrospective we now know more about his mental condition and was in fact competent could you tell me as to the first claim and then what was in front of the trial judge for example i don't think the microchip question was in front of him correct or not there was somewhat limited information before the trial  subject of my motion to expand the record and that included a reference to mr gonzales not being in his right mind and there was also testimony during the trial of regarding this irrational belief in the affair that had gone on for quite some time starting two thousand and four so the time of trial and the evidence that he presented on c b s with respect to that claim includes medical records from a two thousand and four psychiatric hospitalization where he was diagnosed with psychosis and had suffered from the same solution and he with these delusions where he accused his former boss of having a sexual relationship with his wife and his wife had the microchip in her stomach this was in two thousand and four there was also evidence from just after conviction prison medical records showing that months after he was convicted is it your position that someone who suffers from paranoid schizophrenia which pretty clearly your client did or maybe still does per se he is incompetent assist a trial no it's not my persist my position that it's a per se yeah ruled but in this case yes so how do we get from his mental illness which i think is pretty convincingly demonstrated to inco facts a trial and and so that's why these particular delusions would interfere with his ability to understand the proceedings against him and to assist his trial because if he's not understanding reality and he's not understanding what which of his thoughts are delusions with respect to his relationship to mr galvanic then he would not have been able to assist in preparing a defense to this case and these records were also supported by an expert possible it doesn't have to be dispositive has to be sufficient to support the determination by another higher fact that's a moot have to say that this is you know they have to your honors may it please the court deputy attorney general stephen matthews for the respondent here there are two issues one the procedural on the substantive and as far as the first certified issue the procedural due process issue the issue is whether the state courts finding here the issue for this procedure of due process claim is limited soley to the record that was before the trial i just want to make sure i was on the same page and here the problem with the evidence as recognized by the the court of appeal in rejecting this claim and the district court is that the state courts binding on the evidence that was before it that this wasn't sufficient to require a suicide bomb to hearing was reasonable and that is one there was no history of hospitalization of mental illness presented to the frog quarter before the trial court two there was no evidence of any demeanor at trial court indicating the necessity of a competency hearing none has been pointed out to this day three there was no prior medical opinions offered of any and competency for there was no evidence of any opinion suggesting that any of his delusions affected or impacted his ability to understand the proceedings or to interact with his client and with his coun and the fact is that all they're relying on for this claim as well as the substantive claim is that these delusions may have been a motive for the crimes so if so facto in every case in which the delusions were in somehow involved in the committing of the crimes and at the end suffered from delusions that that is not case there will always be a requirement for a competency hearing and then and there will always be a finding of incompetence could you move to the next one that is to say the subject of incompetence as to the substance of it in confidence claim the problem with say are you trying to convince me that he is not a paranoid schizophrenia no i'm trying to convince the court that the doctor's opinion that there's that there was a question as to its competence was not bait was reasonably  rejected as sufficient evidence to suggest incompetence by the state court yeah i mean here's what bothers me about this case you've got somebody who clearly is my view paranoid schizophrenia this fact was not really brought out very well in front of the trial judge at the actual trial we learned about it fairly early shortly thereafter we also know that he was offered a plea bargain which he turned down because the sentence was too long i think as i recall he was offered was seventeen years and he said no that's too long so he goes to trial anybody who is a paranoid schizophrenic i think is not going to be exercising very good judgment as to whether he should go to trial i infer that he's going to trial against the best judgment of his lawyer and he's now sentenced to life for having shot at and hardly injured at all a man about whom he had a delusion that the man was having an affair for his i stand all the way we get there but we've gotten ourselves to i think a very bad place and an unfair outcome well first of all the all the evidence the circumstances of the crime the delusions concerning his belief that the victim was having an affair with his wife and all that that was put before the jury all those delusions were put before the jury and the court second none of those that we have no evidence that the any delusions or schizophrenia that he delusions that he suffered in any way impacted his ability to interact with this counsel or to assist or to assist in his own defense and in fact the fact is the most telling evidence we have of that is the fact that there was no questions raised by the trial court or counsel and this court is considered that evidence the most telling evidence as to both the substantive and the procedural i hear all of that and that may be that i'm merely railing against the machine but it seems to me profoundly gest to imprison a man for the rest of his life for having shot at someone else hardly injured him at all when he's in the grips of a delusion from paranoid schizophrenia and and the the but the question is is that in this case is a different line of force and that is whether the state court reasonably could conclude that there was insufficient evidence of that this defendant was unable to  in his defense or understand the proceedings because we presume a defendant is competent at trial and that the one way into this case that franks me is at least plausible is that the state he had the escort should have at least had a hearing it considered the evidence that was presented which is the same evidence before this court and it looked at that evidence and found that that evidence and the light of the trial court record did not present sufficient evidence to suggest that there was  sential problem with offended the petitioners evidence in state court as well as presented here is that the twofold one none of this raised the level that counsel who had every incentive to raise that issue did not raise that at trial to the trial court who was present at heard all the evidence against the petitioner at trial including evidence of his delusions and was present during trial had no reason to question petitioners competence that's the most one of the most telling evidence of whether the senate was competent to assist in his defense or understand the proceedings and so the only evidence that they presented is really through of medical medically based to support and incompetence is through who's who not only got the dates wrong of when the the prior hospitalization but wasn't basing his his determination on personal examination of petitioner and none of those medical records that he did citing some of them were for years before trial some of them were after trial nothing that existed during trial which is which would suggest more you see a claim on the failure to use the company you know there's never been an stuff and obviously the result of a has as pointed to a significant fact and that is the absence of any indication from trial counsel that of of a question as to its competence and the competence once again is the ability to assist  in his defense and understand the proceedings that the fact that counsel believed that his client was able to assist in the proceedings and understood them met that bar i think and that we have absent any  anything to the contrary from counsel or from the court present during the trial i think that's the most compelling i just find sort of disconnect it's one thing to be able to talk to your client you know where were you you know what they are  i think what i hear so this should have been a hearing this is going to hearing right and where this case not on a t p a that wouldn't need to even be a different consideration but here that the state court looked at all this reasonably looked at all this evidence this same evidence and rejected it and the court of appeal rejected this procedural due process claim looking at that evidence that subject that and the fact findings concerning that are subject deference here in addition the state court reasonably rejected the if we disagreed on the substantive incompetence point what would happen if this court reversed the state courts finding  if you would if this court were to conclude that the state court was unreasonable in rejecting the substantive do due process going thank you thank you because i'm trying to work my way through martino's as it might apply here obviously state court procedural default can be excused under martnez if i see by trial counsel is not raised because  but it's not been raised here either you know and also thinking out loud i'm not sure if if there would be a possibility to raise it on absolutely bobbie and i'm not sure that's going to go anywhere whether we will do it but i'm i'm i'm just kind of working my way through this ok thank you