his thirty five to life and and it's clear also from the magistrate finding that mr placenta had he known that he was going to serve the full thirty five years before first being eligible for parole would have entered the plea and wouldn't have taken the plea appeal but mr placentia pursuant to penal code section one ninety two well actually one ninety point five had the ability to be sentenced to life with parole even if he was convicted of the special he was eligible for parole after seventeen years and that was what mr polyphony i believe and then the there was a discussion at a later time regarding the determine a part of the sentence and how that might if the if he was eligible for parole and she went and seventeen or twenty one or twenty three then the issue the issue would be would be substantially different then the question is and that is that that's essentially different from seventeen but but really the focus is on the thirty five and that which is what he is actually facing right that it was seventeen he would be eligible on that first count in seventeen years when in fact it should have been told within twenty five years that's correct and affirm yes even now with respect to the second count the attempted murder count the district court found that there was no finding of an affirmative misrepresentation as i understand it as to parole on that there may be an absence of any statement but there wasn't any affirmative statement do you disagree with what i do disagree with the district court's finding because the magistrate court found that mr placentia was told it was eligible on his sentence for seventeen years and the magistrate judge conceded that there was discussions regarding the the attempted murder and the arming unhandsome it but but there was a it wasn't clear from in the opinion or from the testimony of mr siegel what that meant know there is no there is no finding specifically as to the if you think you can talk about what that means but let me sort of raise a question based on what i think it means  district court said well you know we have this we there's only an eight year discrepancy you might have heard that case ever finding and then that he said you're going to do seventeen years and nothing that side i would or just court not to draw a line because the problem is that you're if you make a distinction between eight and nine years what's the reason what's the basis for making distinctions saying eight is not with this other boy who got life without parole there's no doubt that he did it once and then three days later he does against his very house and the claim oh i didn't know that my partner would pull the trigger me the first time he might say that's is a big surprise to me you know i should i should somehow get out of like a celebrity but it's very hard to argue the second time after after so from you know they've got  second attempted murder there was no identification of defendant and the the statement that he gave the confession with the first part was degree of difficulty in drawing the line here and there how do you overcome you know the deference is due and that well there was there was the the district court dealt with that there was no difference there was no eventually hearing in the state court it was a denial of the summarily denied there was no there's no deference to to be given the the ruling itself it have you have that you have a you have a determination on the merits even though there may not have been any habeas we would we would all the time if it's a decision on the merits it's true i don't deny that i mean i'm aware the case a lot of cited but the question is in this case is it if i mean there there is it's just a denial that  critical to this case and the reason it is is because when let me start again is critical in this case because there was a decision on the merits both by the california court of appeal and the california supreme court it wasn't a lengthy one it was a packet denial but the california court so there's a there's a determination hill that we don't have to decide i e there is no us supreme court authority holding that collateral consequences will support relief they didn't have to go bare because there was  there was some discussion about doing time on the second count the question then becomes whether or not putting that on the table so that it's clear that what century knew that he was looking like that then leaving out not then going on to address the other aspect that qualifies the seventeen years is testament to another firm out of representation by omission  while counsel may have been somewhat confused about indeterminate terms the ones that are something to life or something to something about exactly the advisement to give on parole there he was not at all unclear about determin nt terms associated with murder counts and there's considerable discussion about penal code section twenty nine thirty three points one point two so the distinction here and i think that's what the district specifically when he testifies that he explained that he would serve all the time he would serve either six eight or ten years on the attempted murder before the class even began to run on the they've come from i think i have a suspicion and i wonder what your understanding would be of that we think it may have come from an out of state case that might have been rather high but that there there has been opportunity here he has to serve these thirty five yeah that's correct but it's because of the nature of these particular charges on the california law is it normal that you get one year of the fifty percent off every assumption there which i want to correct california system is for every four days you serve you get two additional days credit it works out to one third of the time not one half and the eight years is closer to third twenty four years having served one year and getting down to just talking about the murder count than it is to having any effect whatsoever on that determine a term from the twenty five to have one third off when that was not the case the distinction we'd like to drive there is between direct and collateral consequences there's no dispute at all that this defendant knew that he was going to serve just well what's interesting and i if the court has the inclination the one more document i would i would request that they read it's actually on its own traverse  traverse what appellant basically response is sure the court told me but i'm claiming ineffective assistance of counsel i think that's an admission and that's you know before poster is credits in addition to you serve one day you have a day behind you and but the court you know was trying to convey at least and we would assert it does is that there are he knew he was allowed to say no and have things explained to him he did it in this very hearing so you're not going to get any credits do you understand that are you getting the discredits you understand that  of mind if we credit the magistrate judge is finding having heard witnesses testify was that whatever the loreal were like gobbledygook and what the judge was telling him he's relying on his counsel to tell him out of meaning now when you ask questions like do you understand and get an answer that's all seventy and when you ask have there been any other promises made to you when you say no that must have meaning as well the situation at the time but if the court correctly advises and the client says right then and there i understand and then there are further meetings with the client there is a had it not happened at the plea taking itself with months until sentencing hearing and with it very clear then had there been perception of mis advice at the time had there been a misunderstanding the opportunity to make that point is the motion to withdraw the plea at the point at which it's very very very clear at the sentencing and that until after you've been sentenced and that was i was part of his testimony before the district court the issue he didn't read he didn't realize he didn't understand the applicability of that that section that reduced all his credit and he'd have to do a full thirty five years and that was never discussed with him at sentencing the issue regarding the sentence at the police they said we do custody credits well that that is really meaningless because it's not even the should get no custody credits and he was advised that and truly how does how does one who's seventeen years old an educated ones attorney thing you're doing seventeen years before you know before you become procedure you can do that in state court although the effect of filing a motion to vacate it to vacate your sentence because of ineffective assistance of counsel is fundamentally the same motion time off you could if you were you could get work credits while in custody so you would do for every day you did you would get one off it was not clear as to why mr siegel explain the