within a matter of months he's questioning the deal he got the district court in denying the petition placed responsibility of the loss of the transcript lost the reporter notes on the defendant based on part versus really no part versus really did not involve a sense of velo problem involved the boykin problem and the supreme court reversed the six court of appeals and place responsibility for the last transcript on the defendant and their reasoning was that his rights and so the court reason that two years later he should remember his rights and so they said it was not unreasonable to put the burden on the defendant collect us and help us in this case it may have looked at is that a different way to  then your argument might have the moral weight but he's not alleging that there are certain things he's just saying if we had the transcript we might feel whether i did or whether i got here if you look at it the abstract of judgment you can see that that's really messed up you know i mean the abstract i said careful now we have a little bit more to there some motion to expand apparently there's a little abstracted judgment you've got an inmate saying hey i made a deal for twenty five years not forty five and there's no record now it's time to bellow means nothing for there's no record now the other thing you have on top of that is why didn't the court order that reported to him to transcribe what happened at the change of plea hearing i mean this started this inquiry started within a matter of months after my client got to prison and so he's saying hey i got a deal or for twenty five years now if you look at what happened here there were two rapes and that's where he got the twenty five years and then he gets in jail and he gets in trouble and one of them  most likely he was the non aggressor the other one involves i'm not that clear on the facts on the second one but he was he was there with people they are really the movers in this attempted escape or in th well he well i hearing him say there was a twenty year sentence in a twenty five year sentence and he's saying that they were supposed to be concurrent not that there were not twenty five was the first of all right tony five in the twenty was supposed to be concurrent that is the but there are now documents that indicate that now what that on a motion to expand it says that it court's minute say that it was consecutive twenty four years should have been given eight years for each one of those and now i don't know what happened i wasn't trial counsel i don't know why they backed off but maybe this thing this jailhouse thing wasn't all that serious in the court just said well twenty five years is enough and then we've got a record that's not really clear what the steelers so why should the burden be on the defendant he's entitled to a record the state had a responsibility to keep that record and they didn't the state had a record to keep the transcript of the change of plea for seventy five years the state in an obligation to keep the notes for ten years and they couldn't be destroyed and list a court order that that's the law and they didn't follow it and then if you look at the record better i would first like to address the issue of the transcripts there are no transcripts because there were there was no direct appeal of this case so there were reporters notes and in the state think what happens is the reporters notes step in tell it's there's an order that they be transcribed and that never happened in this case the allegations that they were lost are completely that the government did anything to well play destroy them or absolutely not your honor nothing and i have found nothing has produced nothing to show that the z the other allegation or inference is that the c d c the california department of corrections the letters that they sent to the state courts beginning i believe in one thousand nine hundred seven asking for clerical  corrections of the abstract somehow should've triggered the transcript the reporter's notes being transcribed but in fact that is not the way the system works if there's a direct appeal the reporter is ordered and is paid to transcribe the notes but the letters that were sent to the court to the superior court were simply questioning the boxes that were checked on the abstract so there was and there needed to be somehow with the transcripts were going to be the notes would have been transcribed there needed to be a procedure followed and there never was but why didn't anyone in your office requ of the state court file during the district court proceedings suddenly now we not this week the there was another deputy who handled the district in the proceeding in the district court and i have this case came up and then was reversed on it on a timeliness issue and so i have a large file i think and there was an appeal in the initial case the that the twenty five year sentence there was an appeal in that and i have sent a sentencing transcript  that but the final that i had in the office as i looked at it did not include the evidence or any other i couldn't find any minute orders there were no transcripts because there were no transcripts the reporters transcribed so at that point when i got a call from de de clercq here tonight circuit requesting the record and i realized that the only record that i could find was the exhibits attached to the points  which were submitted to the district court i thought well let me see when i record the twenty five years was for a right right that twenty five years right for the initial sentence i believe it was two rapes and they tell you right at that time on rates they had to be if they were separate victims they had a full decade of separate sentences and that's something that you're arguing there that i mean how could he have been twenty years can scheme at that time martin well yes i would argue it's absolutely objective leean reasonable that he would not have received a sentence for the twelve additional crimes that he was he played in with seventy two in one thousand nine hundred five the victims were different training like that you know no allegation and no evidence if there are no further questions i would  order destroying the authorizing the destruction of the reporter's notes and the court's on notice that there's a question on the sentence here there's a question of what the deal is now signed to bell means nothing if a court can throw away the records of the co and throw away the transcripts i expect you to read why you either do it he ought to be happy well he had to do it but what you are saying and what he's saying is these were additional crimes committed right everybody knew it i'm pleading guilty right and the court says ok with throwing them away we're going to act like didn't happen because you've already been since the twenty five that's enough you don't have of these of those is that what you're telling us well along with the crowd you're in trouble so i mean i don't know what the reason is but the problem is your honor it's not our burden to say to what the deal is here to deal with the burden is should be on the prosecution because the state is the one that's responsible for keeping a record and they didn't and they violated their own law and by not keeping the reporters notes if they had followed the law we wouldn't be here we'd know what the deal was i think didn't write thank you your time has expire