that really is only a process and that process set the stage for here is the action and at the same time unlike us when he's actually talking about the he views type claims that he would want to bring but i think the critical point is he's not asking the district court the critical difference here is that he's asking the court to order the clark county public defender's office to do something he's not ordering as and he missed relief he's not ordering the state court to do anything he's merely trying to determine without saying at all whether a federally violated federally protected right had been violated and so i think that's where we would be in this case if you decide that no c e o is required then i think the answer is you have to remain and for determination as to whether there's any other bar or whether there's a federal right that's been violated and i think when you get to that question of whether federal rights been violated it's possible that you will be looking at almost the exact instead but one of the limitations of going through that door is her back and these other cases you cannot ask for sort of the ultimate relief which is to invalidate the conviction or  be the posture to invalidate the conviction unless there is a retrial within ninety days or so a hearing is given you don't think it matters that in order to make this decision we may essentially decide whether there was ineffective good morning your honour's my name is laura ray felt and i represent park county public defender's office in this case as a certificate of appeal ability is required we need to distinguish as born from the present case and was born the petitioner was not directly attacking his underlying conviction he was claiming constitutional violations occurred at a post conviction level when the state refused access to certain evidence that he wanted retested tests that weren't currently available or available at the time of his conviction and the present case the petitioner is attacking his underlying conviction by less core constitutional and i don't even think an appeal would be should be granted in this case but i like to go to wilkinson versus dots and it addressed the issue that we're currently dealing with right now in fact the chance to express some concern in that case that challenges to a sentence or an underlying conviction would remove core he b s cases or court you know those cases from conviction to be overturned as a result he isn't even asking for the appeal always asking for is the appointment of counsel in order for the lawyer to bring a case to seek to his innocence here or it's even more removed he just wants to lawyer understood i understand your point but i think wilkinson versus dots and try to avoid the scenario maybe not very well but i think the the attempt is there and they attempted to make sure denied c e o way on certain issues at least in part because there was no evidence or legal authority for the claims additionally the petitioner claims that all of his attorneys and just three cases that he's challenging here were ineffective because they did not consult with the defendant regarding an appeal and held that the duty to consult is limited to or there's reason to believe the rational defendant would want my this is also consistent at the state level with the case state versus davis which held the queen memorandum and it indicates that if the factor that case had been changed a little bit where that defendant did not request an appeal but merely wasn't consented for one not to be filed then roll versus flores or tito would foreclose that issue and and it's consistent with what happened in this case he is not a letter or claims that he requested his attorney to file an appeal he merely  that he wasn't consulted for an appeal not to be filed which obviously isn't the case either because he looked at the guilty plea agreements which are consistent with state mediators therefore my position is that he discussed and whether it's treated as a three action or hideous action he has not made a claim for which relief can be granted thank you very much thank you i don't think so because i think i mean even a federal court if you were to look at the fact that he is the federal court would never get to that question if this was legitimately barred by state procedural rules and directly on the question of whether there was ineffective assistance and asked for that relief i gather that would behave because that would right  state court in something that would have been either state or federal court and it seems like it's a very appealing argument at first but i'm concerned that it's sort of collapse of science self i understand the struggling aspect of it collapsing on itself and i think that that's one reason and i will answer your question i think that's one reason why why the procedural posture of this case right now is so important for what this court has to do the answer is that i think and that in itself would be similar to winning a federal court because that order that you get a direct appeal might be is like a victory it doesn't actually get to t  now one of the things that my client buys into if he's just filing a nice reaction is that he's not asking for relief and he can't get relief from that relief from the federal court in this action wh