good morning it please the court sean kennedy on behalf of the petitioner ted williams your honor this case raises the question whether a mentally ill defend who fires his counsel because of delusional beliefs has really made a voluntary waiver of the right to counsel and in this case we would submit that mr aviator we can't just start on a clean slate but there are a couple of reasons that i think that the court should look closely at is you despite the e p a the first one is this  accurate knowledge and self the s to many cases and i think that will be enough for him to be looking at the fourteenth amendment i have a right to present witnesses i might be have the sixth and fourteenth of the feeding fish and looking at the inadequacy were already faced sixty days he doesn't sound not six sounds pretty intelligent and confident and in view with that and the the lawyer that you argue should've told the judge that his client was nuts he was only the lawyer for a really short time as there's really no showing that he knew and it seems like how can i say this the stay court was just so far out of line that it is that we don't have to defer to another forty to fifty four we're not i really respect that view and i think it's part of the problem that happened in this case if you read the california court of appeal opinion there is hyper focus on that one moment in time in the trial when the threat of a waiver is executed but as we know under the double doctrine of competency it's not just procedural competency it's substantive  and that requires the court to consider the proceedings as a whole and when one reads the whole proceedings mr williams is the illusion of being very intelligent that start a santa barbara deputy public defender and mr moore is a thing up to the public defender and mr moore had already testified against mr williams at his trial neither of them asked for an inquiry and that's the throughout the proceedings i understand didn't the end of the court would consider to deputy public defenders from the same agency to be different all of his counsel i have asked what is the evidence that think it should have begun at the preliminary hearing where we have the extraordinary act of a defendant taking the stand at his preliminary hearing who's represented by yet another santa barbara public defender and testifies yes he was arrested because the male police officer wanted to follow his genitals and sexually molest them and had done that numerous times before in front of a crowd of cheering women who said don't do him like that in addition mr williams and latched on the record that he had told mr moore that he had mental problems before the trial mr moore didn't want to present that the there really has not been  court in the year has stated that it is very possible that a foreknown waiver would not be voluntary if it was premised on paranoid delusions about trial counsel there is so much evidence in the records here that that occurred that at some point in time even if it was not right at the beginning of the trial that a trial judge had  hold a hearing and higher on this specific issue that's with this court held insurance versus pretty where the court found that the failure to hold the hearing and light of the evidence before the court  think that's true that it is not discussed in the california court of appeals opinion but it was part of the c t c i'm thinking that's a lot to explain away the grid if that had been brought to their attention i'm sure that they would have talked about it maybe they da was different and the public defender was different however the trial judge who presided over a trial referred to his testimony at the preliminary hearing about this specific issue about any wrongful allegations of sexual preliminary transcript is actually a part of the state court record that was before the california court of appeal and i didn't ask about the california court of appeal i meant the crowd judge in alaska the preliminary hearing would not have been transcribed prior transcribed because there are going to be handoffs amongst agencies and in fact that's exactly what happened here that the deputy public defender who did the prelim handed the case off to another deputy public defender for the trial and the transcript was who believes that his lawyer it was actually insulting him wasn't making a knowing involuntary decision to for call having a lawyer that's what i'm saying yes much more specific claim that he's just overall crazy and can't and can't cooperate with  honor and it's just me from my perspective it is the heart of goodness having represented so many many mentally ill defendants that's what it really turns on because competency as we all know is a very low standard and many mentally ill people are competent the question is how does the mental illness play itself out with the respect to suffer representation and counseling if this has to play out with regard to th it and make him disappear in the system all these facts were brought to the attention of the court of appeal and what the court of appeal did was look at them in light of all the other overwhelming evidence actually a friend of mine he was paranoid schizophrenia controlled by medication and he was employed by the census bureau at a very high level as a statistician because say students really extremely intelligent  a child exactly like exactly so was there an adequate basis for the state courts decision the fact that it happened in this case yes your honor that point was never after he was convicted and they did not ask themselves during the trial it could be very well that maybe he was competent during trial and then after he was sentenced well after he was also look at all these other parts of the record showing every new set man who was able to conduct and still skillfully as a self represented defendant and he did that thank you counsel williams versus flyovers submitted