mr bush did not have to entire hours in which to decide whether to plead or not and ninety minutes of the negotiations of the two hour negotiations were involved in back and forth between the district attorney and appellants counsel it's important to note that appellant was not driving these negotiations and he wasn't setting the terms the other just the other clear i believe is that the district court did not adequately analyze or recognize the impact of the extreme methamphetamine abuse the head injuries that appellant had suffered and the social isolation in other words there wasn't an adequate assessment of the factors that go into a voluntary and intelligent plea and if i may i would like to reserve three minutes for a bottle but please was thing to tip off the attorney that he was having mental problems they the attorneys had the two evaluations cut that it's very positive favor of your client but both of them clearly pointed out that the client had these serious meth methamphetamine addiction issues and where usually what happens  expert at the hearing at the evidentiary hearing on this matter pointed out but counsel counsel to laney and mr to any and recognized that his client needed more time told the district attorney very clearly that his needed more time and the district was had been dismissed for that day and they would come back the following morning so the decision could have been deferred which is what mr bush and his attorney wanted until first thing the next morning it would have required that the jury to come back as opposed to dismissing it that paramount at the time of the not indeed not at the time of the plea but there is plenty of anecdotal evidence that methamphetamine addiction the mental effects don't just dissipate if one h long in history this young man started aged twelve or thirteen and his self reporting and that auto accident that summer lakeside tested him for he had meth in his blood it age sixteen so there's no doubt that there's some independent verification of this of this meth addict and the other problem with the plea the respondent raises the colloquy fairly so however the colloquy does not address the question of whether mr bush had adequate time to consider the pleas the colloquy is whether he had adequate time to consult with counsel it's not the same thing furthermore when when push came up with this ambiguous i guess answer it appears that the the judge presumably under the time pressure is for sure why didn't you yes or no answer as opposed to as opposed to asking what do you mean by that i guess how did he say had there been a little bit more inquiry we would have had a clear evidence that he was not ready to go forward with this plea that i'm missing something here i thought the rule eleven was very well done and met all of the standards we have any made a finding of fact as to the condition of your consideration the various facts which i believe were some of which were overlooked i don't think he did adequate consideration to the to the fact that dr thompson and and the to examine company two doctors had addressed that there were serious head that finding of fact the voluntariness was clearly erroneous dr constance statements that the head injuries the methamphetamine the social isolation the lack of prior experience of this young man with the criminal justice system and the fact that he  just turned nineteen those that precluded him from making a voluntary finding out from making a voluntary plea in such a short window of time so that if that's the finding of that's how you show the finding  rejected it is of importance i think that the fact that he didn't get this final this final offer if you will wasn't delivered to mr bush until about thirty minutes before the what was in fact the court imposed deadline even shorter than the prosecution's proposed deadline of five o'clock close of business that indicates the lack of time in which to properly in which to have the ability to reflect and to have the ability to intelligently determine among these options it is certainly conceivable that someone who is highly experienced in the criminal justice system we've been prosecuted a bunch of times before could make a decision of this magnitude in thirty minutes if they didn't have the head injury if they didn't have the meth addiction but this combination of factors unique to this individual indicates that the plea was not knowing and intelligent involuntary as it would have had to have been you want to reserve the remaining ple misapplied established federal law in this case appellant was given an entirely adequate amount of time to consider the plea the record shows that this plea was broached as much as a year readiness conference as much as a week before the actual trial at the time of the plea appellant took the trial court took extensive measures to determine whether or not appellant had enough time to consider the plea he asked numerous questions in which he asked appellant whether he had enough time to discuss this with attorneys whether he had consulted with his in turn he's fully and completely and whether his plea was in fact voluntary appellant that all turns agree that he should have enough time this representation in the trial court is entitled to a strong presumption of verity appellant offers nothing that could challenge his representation as to the trial court other than his and say that the trial court press the palate for clarification and he received that clarification when opponents said yeah the trial court said is that a yes i just need to be sure defendant said yes he did have enough time to discuss what he's indicating here that there's an unreasonable determination of what that would be the test we would apply true your honor that's that's absolutely correct although i suppose the court could actually also find that there was a reasonable  change the test that we would apply in determining whether it's an unreasonable application in this case your honor there is no written opinion other than the beyond would suggest some sort of no route do novo review to the factual determination i'm speaking more literally towards our stand review when the state court suggest your honor that there is a basis if not a written basis there is certainly a basis for the court's finding and i would simply suggest that a d p a rules of deference still apply and that  question well we have kind of unique situation it seems to me and i just try and find out what your view on it is to be perfectly honest your honor we did discuss this and we w suggest to the court that the courts that a palace express representations to the trial court clearly indicate the contrary there are no further questions i'm prepared to submit thank you is in response to the claim that the police have been discussed for several days ahead of time it was not this particular plea offer that was discussed several days ahead of time in the supplemental excerpts of the records at page three fifty one mr to lanie and makes clear that while there were most likely plea discussions ongoing this particular plea was not raised proposed or anything like  order went to his boss mr headstrong and was rebuffed rebutted in the attempt to get more time for him for that and i think what we're dealing with here is a circumstance where although a defendant has no right to a plea bargain the prosecution sets terms that are so restrictive on the amount of time we can arise in a situation where there's a constitutional violation despite despite the prosecution's wish to make this proceed properly they could have said no plea negotiations and avoided this entire circumstance but the way that the district attorney's office is structured the amount of time available resulted in the deprivation of rights lastly i think that the that the notion that there was no mental illness that he was not impaired in any way greatly overstates the fact he did not have a major mental illness but this methamphetamine addiction years and years and years are that all the examiners noted it and dr thompson testif to the extremely it's theirs to the great impact that it has on a person's thought processes and his ability to make rapid rational decisions mr bush was not in a position to make that sort of that decision given his mental history of head injuries and the use of the of the drugs and the social isolation no meant no major mental illness we would agree but mental disorder that impair his reasoning ability e s and it's