from a movie or someone said that's accurate but it's not true there were two sentencing hearing right that's correct as the second sentence in hearing before a new judge not the other judge tract in the in the second sentenc sentencing hearing is inappropriate and i won't have that done before me so you're frozen in your position you did the plea agreement you know i'm going to go there this news but here's the problem with that your honor the plaintiff fact of what the new judge did in the second sentencing hearing i don't believe it is because what you're bound to the recommendation of life with possibility that the problem is not only did he not sit down but implicitly he continued throughout and again we have almost two volumes of hearings that occurred after the case came back and remained but i believe that if you look at the context of what this prosecutor did from day one where we have the newspaper article saying that he never intended to imply to comply with this plea agreement it was his it was his you know decision all along that he wasn't going to do any thing to do that resulted in having the second hearing that's correct however my argument is that from the beginning from the first sentencing continuing into the second sentencing implicitly this prosecutor never wanted this he was never going to make that recommendation that mr that mr stubbs received life in prison with parole and you can see that by when it comes back the first time and they're talking about specific performance and what that what does that mean he the prosecutor who's had his hands slapped by the nevada supreme court saying listen you greets you breached the first time we're bringing this back for e mail and we have him implicitly over here saying i don't agree with him about a supreme court they got it all wrong i didn't breach those he does everything possible will judge who is hearing the motion to withdraw he says you know mr prosecutor you know you're getting a little bit close here and terms of you know why this is relevant in terms of mr stubbs credibility even then he says i'm i know i'm getting close to the line your honor every time the defense counsel throughout these six proceedings that last for four months before mr mr stubbs is eventually sentenced every time the defense counsel says again your honor i and every single thing that he's done throughout the proceedings which began at the first sentencing and continued all the way to the second sentencing implicitly he's repudiated that plea agreement w however where this prosecutor crosses the line and breaches again is implicitly within the agreement and understands about well and under numerous cases including united states versus johnson the government must not explicitly or implicitly refute the agreement and i think it's clear from the beginning that this this prosecutor has said and actually he didn't say even and in the first sentence and he never said we stipulate that mr stubbs to get like  the argument that the new judge shouldn't have looked at all of the briefing and everything else that occurred before the step before the second sentencing but what defense counsel also argued and the clear sanibel issue here was that under delgado green versus lampert and buckley versus terry who because they didn't discuss how to follow they didn't discuss the breach and there was no basis for the reasoning of a clearly established federal law that they were applying when it good morning enemy please the court my name is heather proctor deputy attorney general with the state of nevada and i have the privilege of representing the respondents in this matter with regard to the issue of whether or not the prosecutor breached the  previous articulated opinion in the plea agreement and quote the state specifically noted that it would agree with the plea agreement and that the plea agreement provided that the state would recommend life with the possibility of parole the prosecutor at the second hearing sort of reminds me of a football game where the crowd has been we're warned about too much noise in the camera focuses on the player and he's  agreement required him to stipulate and to and to urge the court to impose life with the possibility of parole in yesterday and he didn't do that he did not but he did at the bring order remount and the state district court as has also been noted by this court and at least five different occasions specifically stated that in order to comply with an aspirin court's order on remand the state would not be permitted to speak at the actual sentencing that they would be able to not be able to add anything and that in fact the state would stand silent at the sentencing with district attorney's office with washoe county district attorney's office your honor what's the size of that office where was it i know that they have i don't know precisely i know that they have several district attorneys it is the second largest district attorney's office in the state of nevada in other words there were people other people other than the prosecutor who attended the first instinct hearing who could have that into the second and there are your honor you know why that wasn't done i do not know your honor i would expect that it's because that same prosecutor is assigned to the case throughout that he unless the court has anything further regarding that particular issue or the issue regarding ineffective assistance of counsel i don't have any other questions with you next time you do so you know only with district attorneys tell them in this circumstance the wises but district attorney is no practicing in clark county your honor he's moved from reno to las vegas in terms in terms of what he was able to say what he was able to choke out he said the state would concur with previously articulated opinion that's not saying what the term was that's not saying what the benefit of the deal was here in terms of making that deal was to stand up there and say that the state's to be lighted that mr stubbs received life with the possibility of parole and he couldn't show for that what he said that ambiguous statement that he said occurred four months prior to the actual sentencing he implicitly using your football analogy was doing everything possible to make sure that that agreement wasn't reached and standing silent under this court's own cases as well as united states state supreme court is not enough in terms of  him you know fulfilling the terms of the plea agreement i would argue that you can't i'm done undo what's been done here there's absolutely no way to undergoing the bell that this prosecutor running you cannot force a plea agreement because there's no way to get back to the status quo for mr stubbs rommany is the recission and as and buckley is the only way to achieve fundamental fairness and that's viable remedy under sandalow the district attorney in this case cannot give lip service to an agreement and i