autonomy of the criminal defendant and protects the ability of that defendant to choose counsel of his own volition free from the arbitrary interference ok this is a lot of generality we know what the law is what specifically did the illinois appellate court just stick with this attorney the court so that's a factual finding right and will defer to that and you're not arguing that that was a mistaken factual finding so if the court didn't pressure him to stick with this attorney  found it knowledge that the trial court interfered with mr graham's decision making process it said that the court acknowledged that the court had influence over mr graham's decision but it found that the court did not compel mr graham to continue with mr howard in our argument and what we what a clear supreme court precedent makes clear is that this interference on the part of the trial court or rises to a level of a violation of the right choice of coun and over backwards to make a record and not influence the decision i would push back on that interpretation of the on the record more we're required to court focused on when it was evaluating the trial court's actions was whether or not the was whether or not i should back up apologize you want to have help or stated that the trial court court formulation and interpretation of the sixth amendment was unreasonably applied to the facts of the case because the question is not whether or not mr graham was compelled the question is is whether or not mr graham made his own we don't know because we don't know what the alternative lawyers would be true but presumably being represented by an individual who has many disciplinary proceedings pomaded you all have many disciplinary  fractions that's very common so we don't know who the next choice would have been do we know we don't when a defendant in this particular instance brings the issue on the record and states that he has significant issues with his attorney and it is indeed out of position to make a choice as to whether or not to continue with that a trial judge should not as the trial judge did here insert itself just such an extent that it essentially over it presents basically one choice to mr graham to continue with what the how the intermediate appellate court said that's not what to the defendant that it was entirely his decision about whether to stick with them or to ask for someone else he didn't place any time pressures on him for making the decision or say that you know we have to stick with this trial date sometimes judges overstep by by conveying the impression that you know they're irritated because the trial is going to have to be adjourned if there's a new counsel that's took none of that happened here the judge was very patient at least so far as the appellate court was concerned and explained that it was entirely up to the defendant whether to stay with mr howard despite the disciplinary investigation or to have a new lawyer this is true and again you're correct we need to you are obligated to defer to the factual findings of the state appellate court however this goes back to the point that we were discussing earlier which is that clearly established federal law makes clear that the six and the right  is one to autonomy and that even an effective denial of that right by for example arbitrarily failing to grant a continuance that would allow a defendant to be represented by his preferred counsel right  agreed completely but what this is is this is a flip side of the same coin if affected if the supreme court is found that effectively denying an individual access to his preferred attorney by arbitrarily for failing to grant see website my understanding is either he has appealed that suspension and hasn't been allowed back in or has not attempted to practice law in illinois i'm not quite sure where that you have to affirmatively seek reinstatement following a suspension of that l found that the trial court gave petitioner the opportunity to discuss the matter further to discuss how it's just a plenary proceedings further and gave the petitioner the opportunity to make his own decision these are factual findings that should not be disturbed as judge likes pointed view and they have not been challenged reasonably applied the priem court precedent as laid out as that fourth first and we versus the united states there the court held that a non indigent defendant has a limited right to choose his own representation on the first stand trial at the colloquy between the trial court and petitioner the trial court repeatedly conveyed to petitioner that the decision as to whether or not to proceed with howard as his attorney belonged to petitioner himself there's no question that the judge for howard's abilities two favorable comments about howard's abilities and he did in fact refer to howard's reputation as legendary but he immediately qualified those statements by saying to the petitioner that the court's opinion doesn't matter in this case and it is only petitioners opinion that is relevant to our himself repeated that to petitioner that if petitioner had any problems petitioner should should make the court to wear and make him aware that but to the contrary petitioner affirmed no less than three times on the record that he wished to proceed with power under these circumstances the state appellate court's decision finding that petitioner was not deprived of his right to counsel of choice was more than reasonable under existing supreme court precedent contrary petitioner's contention there is no supreme court precedent holding that an effective denial amounts to a violation of the right to counsel of choice the cases that petitioners cites for this proposition all arise out of this circuit and are defendant is in limited circumstances entitle to the right to counsel of choice and the state courts are given leeway to apply that general rule in in the cases before them to the fact to the facts of the case before them and in this case the state court use that leeway to hold that where a petitioner is informed or learns that he has the ability to make the decision as to whether to continue with counsel and affirms that he is making the decision to continue with his retain is a new rule that is not a political retroactively under either of the t v exceptions and petitioner has not demonstrated adverse effect under the pre gonzales lopez standard so this struck me as really more appropriately a case of a challenge to the adequacy of conflicts waiver although it's not a classic conflict situations as in he was representing a witness or something of that nature although there was some of here but that it's you know the kind of situation where there is an obligation on the part of the trial judge to verify that the defendant is operating under complete information about the nature of the chosen attorneys conflicts and here the ongoing dark investigation but that apparently wasn't raised or hasn't been conceptualized is that kind of a challenge that's correct your honor and petitioner has never framed the claim in those terms either in state court or before this court today and at this point of course that would be procedurally defaulted because the n c p has never brought the