decisions that constitutes a judgment here the two thousand and eight this isn't i think it would if that were the only thing that had been done by the washington supreme court that there was the opinion in two thousand and eight that was the first time that the washington supreme court had actually made a ruling that attempted felony murder in the first degree did not exist as a crime so  start he was on notice your honor and he he jumped into action because on the one hand that opinion did something very favorable to him it said that he had pled to something that did not exist as a crime but it also  ruled that he was still convicted of attempted murder in the first degree because it ruled that he had pled guilty to attempted premeditated murder and that his  whatever you want to call it but you know at the bottom line here you have a factual situation where two people essentially that i mean there's an argument that the shootings were execution style and miraculously one person didn't die and albeit that if you go back to the original thing he face the death penalty you face life without possibility of parole and so he some very good defense counsel saved his life got him a determinant sentence of sixty five years meaning and i don't know exactly how i'm a california kind of gal in the state court so i don't know how the credit for time served works in washington but with the determinant sentence being a young man this is an individual that have a chance that he wasn't going to be subject to governors about whether he gets out on parole or whatever he had to determine that sentence two people that got shot in the head and one died and one didn't die and he also agreed not to appeal and so here we are talking about it every time later and  issue was whether premeditation could be proved and i think it's clear from the the comments of his lawyer that that this was a a compromise negotiated deal expectations she's got a judgment that says murder in the first degree and it's tenth of murder in the first degree and both of those statutory citations are limited to the felony murder  and it's only in two thousand and eight when that washington supreme court says first of all felony murder attempted felony murder is not a crime but hey by the way you pled to attempted premeditated murder the first notice that sought to challenge that and he filed motions and petitions and over time he actually gained some relief he obviously gained relief in the two thousand and eight decision because the had pled to something that wasn't a crime and then he over a period of a couple of years he was able to persuade the washington supreme court to issue a new ruling wrecking the  county superior court to make a request to change to the judgment and ask you question i know because we don't have a lot of time there was the second issue that we that we raised about the two thousand and thirteen protection filed in the western district of washington and it is is that what your response to whether the petitioners january twenty thirty nine petition i i think it's fairly clear under mcnabb versus yates in the ninth circuit and also supreme court decisions like burton versus stewart in burton the petition was dismissed as well if you can too if if you get to be a man dead letter office clerical or whatever then you have to if we if you get to that issue i think oneself a little bit of a problem for you know your own actually when so was not a problem and i think i'm a little bit of a problem i said ansell then you should think it's a little bit of a problem well i mean if i could present so why doesn't just happen as a matter of just automatically you know you know what you just take ten off and that's all that had to be done worse than mad when he had to go back and have a whole sentencing hearing on the death penalty again but that was you know on that on alternative theories you had to beat him on both and if you didn't prevail on both and he wasn't going away on now all of a sudden the supreme court has reduced as a limited one of them and that may make its path a lot easier let me give you an example i mean if you had let me give you a hypothetical suppose that i convicted you mr causton today and offer two reasons and just bear with me that they're still the reasons one is because you're wearing a blue shirt and the others because you're six foot seven now one of those is clearly correct the other own is clearly erroneous you have to knock out both of those because there are alternative theories you're never going to be able to beat the rap that you're wearing a blue shirt but if the supreme court of of washington kerry all of a sudden you've got a really easy path don't you because it's clear  pillars supporting they attempted first degree murder right and one of those now gone and one of the one of them was removed absolutely and that one looks like it was a slam dunk as long as attempted felony murder was good law in washington and so there's no incentive for him to bring a challenge on attempted first degree murder as long as the state has a slam dunk on the other one once that's been eliminated then he's got he's got an entirely different case in front of him and entirely different path to he had one of two alternative means of committing it that attempted first degree murder and one of them remain valid so nothing's changed in in the second column but i give you a hypothetical as to why as to why it might change the way that his that his strategy would approach such an appeal if if one of the what's irrefutable that is you are wearing a blue shirt you have no and if you have little incentive to to to not to knock that out you can't beat that rap today mr causton if i choose you of being you're in the ninth circuit and so you've got to deal with once all and so that once all is different then mark if you were in the tenth circuit you'd be in better shape well you and your money go in one  undisputed when when they document clearly says something different than what happened in a court proceeding and everybody agrees on that and then of course that can be legitimately referred