approach to cases coming directly out of the district courts than we do on a case coming out of state courts at the first problem of play like how do you get around mayberry well maybe i don't know that there's anything that could be gotten around your honor it wasn't a sixth amendment violation was an attempt to enforce a plea bargain that had been withdrawn and then there was a subsequent plea in the court said quite strongly that once you have a subsequent plea that was constantly counseled on a couple of times and maybe they stressed the point that the plea had to be constantly counsel but once you have a subsequent huffily competently counsel plea that wipes away all constitutional violations that came before but doesn't maybe also say that specific performance is not the only remedy it is not the only remedy it may not why can it be an abuse of discretion in a case like this where the offer was mistaken while the said that is the only remedy and that there was necessarily an abuse of discretion you're telling us that the judge marshall had no options other than a grand specific performance is that what you're telling us under that under this because the law says you have no one of no discretion on one hand you have discretion but you're saying the law says you don't have discretion you're i'm saying she had no option to gr exception to reinstatement of the plea offer and restoring for the through the defendant the position he was in or would have been in at the time of the constitutional violation depends on  showing that the plea offer was showing by the prosecution of the plea offer would have been withdrawn or modified before expiration there was no such showing here there was there was evidence that the prosecutor did not understand what the california supreme court later how it was a plan and unambiguous meaning of the three strikes statute and that's why then you know we have to accept that at face value that she didn't understand it but she did not say that the offer would not have been made the charging decision would have been different and in fact there's an contradicted evidence in the record that in cases of this kind where third strike the potential third strike was a relatively minor crime here petty theft that it was common practice and perhaps as much as half of the cases in riverside county were initially charged at the early this position stage as one strike cases and dealt with on that level now once they got past the preliminary hearing it was over as it was in this case and i think it speaks volumes that course the offer was based on the understanding the law at the time but that even based on those findings there is no showing that the offer would not have been made that it would not have been charged that this is what he thought would not have been charged as a one strike there is no evidence on the record on that initial charging decision and plea offer would have been different yes i think it's completely fair in a case like this where no binding of hell of the season had come down before but this is california supreme court following these four five and maybe exaggerating a little bit more than one appellate decision so that in a rather short part of the german opinion that this is on its face of course that of course the hermit's this kind of charging that it's not the prosecutor being taken to task for her mistake so i think that is entirely fair on the situation what we are what our argument is that there has been no showing that the offer and the plea offer would not have been made and there has been no showing has she been aware she for either one because of the unique situation here and i would emphasize i would have to start i shouldn't say it's unique but there's a unique amount of clarity here many of these cases the plea bargain is it is an offer to recommend they depart i know you're  governed by incorrect legal principles and it's a consequence reached the wrong solved what do you do with the district court's observation that california law permits the prosecution to withdraw a plea offer even after the defendant's acceptance of the offer and the absence of any detrimental reliance fi the defendant so the this record seems to have been saying even if the defendant had accepted that mistaken offer of the prosecution could have acted to withdraw it short of any detrimental reliance there was no showing in this case that  that's what would have happened in fact is these these offers were accepted and executed with some frequency but i mean that i think the court was talking here about the remedy and pointing out that there were all kinds of probability possibilities that also because the author writes erroneous like based on the original charging prosecutors temporary misunderstanding of california law kind of temporary insanity thinking congress to me your honor that that the prosecution should be punished when  sounds close to you i'm not sending any messages one way or another but would you like an additional ten days to continue to explore that or shall we submit the case and give you a decision i think we would take  would be open to further negotiations does the state have any objection to that one way or another we're not trying to force anything down a very strong when there are attempts to settle a case we're not going to get in anybody's way either we'll give it to the end of next week then and read series i'm repeating myself for the third time this is no pressure one way or another we're not sending any signals but if there's a possible resolution in the mix and you want to take advantage of it so we'll defer it until the end of next week both submission in this case is different we'll call ruiz morales versus ass kroft