state court unconscious related to a single shooting involving a single victim he was sentenced to separate consecutive sentence about attempted murder and the lesser included  where we've got interests whether double jeopardy has just caved on the merits then we've got to have a review it said of even then you have a hard factual finding don't you with respect to the fact that you say it of the trial court record especially the commonwealth's own theory at trial that the very first shot constituted attempted murder which is of course inconsistent with the later theory at sentencing that the first shot was near aggravated assault though you never cite the double jeopardy clause don't even cite in the state appellate decision a federal court case you cite the anderson case out of the commonwealth which did recognize that router doctrine is similar to or maybe the same as the test articulated block burger so if you're claiming that you fairly presented that group double jeopardy claim and it through how what is on one eighty eight of the headaches which is the brief that carries your doubts you filed in the supreme court how it's fairly it's just one page how that fairly presents the double jeopardy issue this course decision and mccandless describes several ways that a federal claim can be presented one of those ways is through the citation to state court analysis and then another way under mccandless is the assertion of the claim in terms through particular as to call to mind a specific right protected by the constitution is that that might be your best slot for you right in addition to the comment all statements at trial that the first saw it constituted attempted murder there were other there other portions of the trial quote record that demonstrate that the convictions for attempted murder and aggravated assault if  that the offenses and those are the elements and i started down the basis of find mr harmon guilty if those elements are satisfied there was no warning that the jury should not base convictions on the same conduct child give no indication that the convictions are based on separate conduct but under the standard that judge and ask the references would not require distinguishing actually distinguishing the facts of the squarely on all fours factual i actually identical decision i'm i'm not aware of but as a supreme the supreme court precedent that does exist cannot be applied reasonably to this case without in other aspects of the trial court record and that's of course the conclusion that the separate sentences did arise from the same conduct is knee testimony of the alleged victim whose testimony was that he was change it's change in time does always going to be a change in time between shots fired but that does not explain a new intent being formed it's not commit murder was from theoretically that might have been found in a case where that was the theory that was tried by the commonwealth a very clear theory they call this an attempted execution that mr harmon is supposed to  up with intent to kill and the very first shot fired was attempted murder with the benefit of putting that very simple theory of the case before the jury they were able to secure the convictions and then the first course with a new theory at sentencing in order to avoid  this is initially this is a more to pull sentence question which never arises before sentencing and at sentencing the sentencing judge said i agree with the commonwealth this isn't page one f learned opponent that the victim turned around and threw his son into the doorway and great either they went from a baseball bat to a gun but there was some something that says aha we were separate and and here the fact that you turn turn around and your son if we're just looking evidence and that that was a reasonable  the first one way the less egregious right if the first one were you know in the shoulder of them when least initially shot in the back and it's characterized as an execution to me it is a little bit distinguish the issue as stated at one eighty eight says helen received an illegal sentence where the trial court imposes consecutive sentences for the crimes that attempted murder and aggravated assault where there was one victim question i can only point to those cases that i but i spoke about already and i like to add one more which is tracing me some it's a district of massachusetts two thousand and five case it's four hundred three ninety three there were five gunshots within thirty seconds the massachusetts court found that this was two criminal acts because the defendant stepped toward the victim during the shooting legislative intent as they are here when i was a reverses hunter if they do explicitly say that they're looking for legislative intent but the state law that they cite does say that that's what they have to do that's what they're doing they don't need to say we're looking for legislative intent they did in this particular case the supreme court didn't but the cases that it cited all did it was a thing of for the question was and i thank you thank you very much