consolidates was convicted of first degree premeditated murder even though the person that he killed was someone barely known to him and even though at the time of the offense it was just a sauce had a blood alcohol content was placed once the ineffective assistance claim was made mistake courts and know what that intrigues hearing in the district court but from what i can tell from looking at the discovery it was apparent early on the reports that were made in the case indicated  ninety one right after the offense occurred that drinking had been involved his client of course was taken to the hospital right after he was arrested and at that point in time a search warrant was ordered and requiring  investigation the late both the late disclosure by the state of the toxicology report and the lack of the investigation by the attorney of those two things work together how that impacted the attorney client relationship breakdown the attorney client relationship i see in our human may that cancer was in as a factor for not having done the investigation earlier that's what i see the argument before us and my question deal with that being  scrutiny standard when the lawyer he's not he's not sharp enough paying enough attention but he knows before trial he's found out he knows the problem he's gets the premier psychiatry is ready to go and the only question really is will the client give some more time so that this person is shown so that i can put on the evidence no should be put on and the client says no no more evidence of the extent to which mr gonzales clearly had lost all faith in his attorney there was no rational reason for him to say i don't want to put on an expert other than the belief that this attorney i can't trust  attorney at all because this attorney hasn't been doing anything for me in the months that this is then pending even though we've known that this is an issue i how nice it is to the court how my supposed to believe him that this isn't my best interests he's a very simple man doesn't understand the legal system very well all he knew was he had a right to a speedy trial and the lawyer had done so little to engender any trust in him that he did not want any further to follow that boyer's advice because he didn't see  pretty interesting well there are the line of cases of course from this court that indicate that if there's a breakdown in communication that's a reason for pointing in a lawyer and i think that those go hand in hand of course the standard is does the lawyers actions fall below general standards a competency i know for myself if i were to go into the trial court and say a couple weeks before trial court before trial a matter that i had just discovered an expert i wouldn't have expected that any of the judge  i don't i think that it is and i realize that it's pushing the issue a bit but i do think that a lawyer has the obligation to investigate a case and work on a case to the level that the client doesn't lose so much confidence as occurred in appellate court decision that it was that the trial counsel was not dilatory in looking into the need for an expert i believe that's an unreasonable conclusion given the record in this case he not have to look through prior just asians in order for a claim to be exhausted our position here though is that the state supreme court did it's particularly telling if there were two denials of review in this case one of the direct appeal on one part of the person on the strength petition they just said substantively we don't disagree with the court of appeals just briefly and i would like to reserve my time as you part as the delay on appeal the state takes the position that that's not a clearly established rule certainly once the state standard no federal of evidentiary hearing is warranted there are a couple of reasons for that one is that  specific allegations by incorporating a brief given that this was not a summary denials given that the state supreme court did not say we were denying review because you have a comported with our rules it is apparent that they read the state of counsel and the general nature of that claim and that's all that needs to be done that's all i have thank you thank you