actually did not find this to be an untimely requ was no finding that this would somehow disrupt the proceedings or the other factor that the state seems to point to at this point it was strictly the fact that he had a sixth grade education and there was certainly some discussion of his finding the role that this was untimely that this would be disruptive to the proceedings that would be a different situation but that clearly was not done it was strictly this and this is this matter and  representation and fire attorneys now obviously that we fairly disruptive if it had happened in the middle of evidence in front of a jury she or we have a clear break in the proceedings and again  not the trial judge made the correct call in reopening the evidence there was still there was still the proceedings on the home that motion on the motion had been filed and there was sentencing so heat i don't couldn't get his that certified copies together of his prior conviction so if we're talking about any sort of factoring of delay involved here a sizable portion of it was certainly out of the defendant out proceeding that he wasn't even entitled to the supreme court rules are very very clear the defendant waived the right to testify in open court and the judge said to him if you pass out now you're not going to get a chance to testify later here that's correct your honor but the people would argue that implicit in the right to proceed pro se is the right to proceed and in this particular case thirty days have passed the motion for a new trial was denied the case was continued for sentencing and the judge so the trial judge was sitting presiding over the case and the defendant gave her pro se motions in english the defendant converse with the judge and she had a full hearing on this matter she asked him about his education he had gone to school in cuba he had a sister to six grade education she presented motions in english and then said he couldn't understand english and she said i don't understand what you're saying i don't even understand these motions i'm making a finding of fact that i can't communicate with you and therefore i am appointing the public defender to represent you on this matter so the judge had a  ultimately each case must be decided upon the facts of the at particular case and in this particular case given the language barrier given the fact that the defendant was filing something that apparently he didn't understand certainly the judge didn't understand what he was saying certainly would be within her discretion to decide in addition to the right is one of those factors the work case discusses the way my opponent would have this quickly that somehow the state contribute to the delay but the defendant hit every opportunity to bring up the psni at or at trial in this motion for a new trial now or two lines past the motion for a new trial being denied and he's asking to proceed pro se on motion the defendant comes forward and asked to file some motions and priss pro se and the judge around him to reopen his case and the defendant could task that real it occasion so there are no cases on this point however as a matter of law for right it is in applicable the the trial judge in this case bent over backwards to this defendant she killed him every opportunity to litigate his rights and she gave him every don't again i think we've gone through the the fact that the question of whether or not the case was it was correct to reopen the case or not is not really at issue here  again a sizable chunk of that delay was attributable to the state's problems finding the prior convictions and again there was not a full hearing on his re to represent himself there was no federal wanted monish linspire suit to the rule which i would think would be part of any full hearing the judge basically you know ask him a couple of questions and then said no you can't represent