caused by a psychotic disorder which is related to an extreme form of fibroid disease this case presents two related claims both associated with mr alvarez his mental competency at his trial i'd like to start with the substantive incompetency claim the claim that he was in fact incompetent at trial and then proceed to the ineffective assistance claim on his b s mr alvarez presented several pieces of evidence to support his claim that he did not have the present ability to consult with his lawyer to a reasonable degree of rational understanding and a rational as well as factual understanding of the proceedings against him  some of that evidence comes in the form of the expert declaration of dr nathan label who found that who reviewed over ten years of medical records and concluded that mr alvarez suffers from prior to zero two but the earliest records that we have that are medical records are the jail records so to oh two and three so contemporaneous with trial so and there is some suggestion in those this at least the the hyperthyroidism was present at the time of trial and he was receiving treatment from it the jail records also show that there was some anxiety attacks but then about seven months after mr alvarez went to state prison then he was admitted to the psychiatric hospital for the first of your concern your honor i think in this case where the medical condition the underlying medical condition which is this virus fibro toxic osis or this five or disease which is causing the psychiatric symptoms is testified that he has this medical condition the thyroid problem he said that it creates insomnia and he doesn't he didn't drink alcohol because of it there is also evidence so the thyroid condition was definitely in fact at the time of trial what do we do with the evidence from his attorney of the time montana who mentions that mr arse had a mental deficiency that needed to be addressed and close setting and so the senate report how did that get into the record it's my understanding is that at the very least it was referenced at sentencing so there's a there's a notice in the record of the where the court says i consider the probation report and i think we were in the record was different than the pre sentence report the mental deficiency that should be addressed in a close setting and that's from the probation report and so all of that we think that's it that was enough to tip off the judge that this guy should have the particular defendant should have had a the question is whether trial counsel should have been tipped off by these red flags and i think when we look at the probation report in addition to these these other  snippets certainly strange physical behavior and the defendant being characterized as nervous and odd and and at these other sometimes seems to indicate that first on the issue of competency dusky requires that a defendant be able to understand the proceedings against him and cooperate in his own defense pate requires that the trial judge hold a competency hearing when there's a bona fide doubt as to competency and we have to we have to keep those legal concepts in mind and here the record of trial plainly demonstrates that under those standards but titian or did understand the trial and did cooperate with counsel and that there would have been no basis to hold  hearing but testified in his own defense regarding mistaken identity provided an alibi and withstood cross examination there was nothing out of the ordinary about his testimony to do this petitioner must have been able to understand the trial and the charges against him and to cooperate with counsel and his alibi witness larry battista later testified consistently with that defense in fact a declaration by mr montagnier as defense counsel demonstrates the alibi theory originated with petitioner and that he connected mr battista to counsel mr martinez added that there was nothing whatsoever in petitioner's demeanor or history or behavior that suggested that he was legally incompetent excuse me the evidence fisher offers in response such as the lavan report didn't factually contradict any of that it was undisputed that petitioner suffered from hyperthyroidism at the time of trial and about nine months after his commitment to prison and the disease required hospitalization over the next several years the disease manifested mental symptoms such as paranoia but there's no logical basis to extrapolate backwards from those symptoms to the time of trial in a case like this where we have a record of the trial and testimony competent cogent testimony by the defense nor was the state court's decision in an unreasonable determination of facts respondent did not challenge dr lave its credibility or challenge the veracity of the medical records that he relied on the state court simply had to weigh the overwhelming evidence contemporaneous evidence of competency against a backward looking analysis from two thousand and thirteen over a decade later saying the converse so it was reasonable to for the state court for the california supreme court under these facts to determine that the uncontroverted trial record and the montana his declaration or dispositive the ineffective assistance of counsel claims fail for much the same reason as a  strickland overlay on the competency issue there was no contemporaneous evidence of incompetency so mr montana's omission of a request for a competency hearing couldn't fallen below an object of lee reasonable standard of representation get any obligation to investigate what we know that he knew that petitioner had the declaration didn't seem to elaborate too much on what he learned about his well he questioned mr alvarez on direct about that disease caused him to have doubt and we know that he suspected something was with him because he stood up in front of the jury at the beginning of the trial and right we know that they were going to gave his opening statement they were physically really think the record  tells us that there were physical manifestations of the graves disease so there was fidgeting there was and i think those symptoms inform us about what the temporary early attorneys that were dismissed said about him being cuckoo and all kinds of  you know he had obviously some kind of mannerisms that were drawing attention and i think mr martinez did a very reasonable thing in inquiring about those before the jury to explain why he was fidgeting the way that he was but none of that goes to the analysis of competency the question for competency and for ineffective assistance of counsel overlaid on that is whether the individual understood the trial and could cooperate with counsel and the record plainly tells us that that he could and that he did and so mr montagnier as didn't have any duty to become a medical doctor and go into the details of graves disease beyond what the legal test requires which was cooperation and understanding  and i would add that i think if mr among ten years had requested a competency hearing we have a very good idea of how that would have played out because we have petitioners behavior in you know his waiver of speedy trial right hearing  testimony his decision to invoke his absolute right to testify all of his in court behavior is probably a good guide for us to to to know how a competency hearing would have gone down he would have been in court briefly address the evidentiary hearing issues that opposing counsel raised in terms of the the supreme court initially i would argue that the omission of the evidence here in california that too much i would say that we win even if we look at that issue as a d two question because under cases like taylor and hibbler the issues for omission of an evidentiary hearing go to you know is their credibility contest we have witnesses saying different things that we have to weigh in here there was none of that there was a disputed evidence in the form of the trial record and dr lave its analysis was not factual dispute only his legal conclusion as to competency was and i would note that was really telling about dr levy is recall report is that it's based on the stew thousand and thirteen interview but nowhere in the really offices he looked over the records for correct ten years worth of records and some of those records were very were shortly post trial right that's true but what's telling about it is that nowhere in the inductor latest report that i could find does it actually say i asked petitioner did you understand the trial and did you cooperate with counsel it's not asked or if it was asked is not in the report and what the report simply said is that outlines the medical history mostly the vast majority of which from after the conviction and then says in my professional opinion he doesn't meet that standard ok but why didn't you ask the real meat of the actions and so for that reason i don't think that the report even presents a factual dispute now these claims was a correct application of u s supreme court authority and a reasonable determination of facts given the evidence most notably the trial record plea thank you i would like to go back to what counsel for respondent said the ultimate question is did mr avarice understand the trial and the evidence shows that he suffers from severe longstanding mental health problems that affect his ability to rationally understand what is going on and the state court decision denying his petition w reasonable there was no order so cause i think there were credibility disputes respectfully disagree with my opposing counsel on that and for all these reasons i asked that the court find that  for further proceedings ok