both arguments and the attorney general's argument so threshold issue they have challenged the jurisdiction of this court to hear this appeal so i would like to talk about the facts that occurred after the initial appeal here to the time that there to jury trial my client had challenged a waiver by his trial counsel that was prodder than the consent that had been provided this court we mandated vacated the judgment and the mandate for further factual hearing my client has had a very hard time understanding the limited role that i play despite my repeated attempts to educate him about my role when this case was remanded back to the trial court he asked that i would represent him lower at the lower level due to professional commitments i could commit to doing that why inform him of that however he seems to have a very difficult time understanding that despite my repeated conversations with her specifications with him after you send him go letter to tell them about the good news i did i had subsequent me after your client learns of this judgment has been entered against him he sends a letter in july saying wait a minute what happened that's right why can't we construe that  is that she waited eleven months after the entry of judgment it before he actually filed a notice he waits yes it's actually longer than that your honor actually because the judgment comes in june of two thousand and four and his judgment and the procedures that revolve around the national judgment i'm not sure i don't think that abuse of discretion is the standard that we have to decide what it is that that was being appealed and if it was the entry of the judgment then i don't see how we get the difficulty i have is that what he's asking is is what i was going with my other comment was there are three letters i'm presuming it's a second letter in the second letter he merely says my counsel did not receive this information would notice we did not understand that to be a sixty motion circumstance and one of the points of your argument then is that we should not consider the sixty motion because you didn't have notice i think that's i think that's that's a fair certain that that we had telephone contact i can represent to the court that we did serve our papers on the streets outcomes office and they work so that i have to say i find this whole thing just a terribly frustrating experience he properly notified as to what he was consenting to in the original thing as to what it was going to be you can try to the district judge and this is just you know this is penny ante stuff and here we are back the second time on something that should have been this is an entirely unnecessary proceeding the human right this minute to some extent it's certainly does seem that way and what the court is suggesting it's avoidable that someone would have would have made a telephone call i suppose and says are you still representing him  the appointment of appellate counsel said counsel was for the appeal of course yes and and so at that point the prior deputy attorney general can look at that and say this is this is her involve the second is when the motion for new trial was filed judge burrell did respond to that motion in and there are things they feel second of two thousand and one and he said three things number one is that the way you based on their act there was a i say a very affirmative statement by the district court that mr felt cohen was to remain as his counsel in the trial matter and that was a that was a basis for for the service  remedy if there is a remedy is in a new claim for ineffective assistance of counsel because mr felt calm does not actually communicate with him or in the alternative inform the court that he was no longer representing him and therefore let this time lapse and therefore the appeal should have been filed timely and heard on the merits without passing judgment on his actions that is the truth that's the correct analysis i see now so i have come to i believe that the service  find it hard to believe that they didn't understand that there was no longer representation that the representation was no longer in place so i don't think that the assumption that's a fair assumption on the half of the state secondly as to the effective assistance issue obviously