notice to him and outside his presence mr os of a doe did not find out about three sentences thing until the time to file a notice of appeal from the recent in saying had expired the court of appeal had ordered the trial court to consider henri sentencing whether to stay a twenty five year to life consecutive sentence for possession of stolen property count it is unknown based on the records we have whether the trial court actually considered whether it should stay the sentence or not and whether counsel were even present for those proceedings mr us of a those trial counsel was prejudicially ineffective under the standard set forth and roe versus floors of ta taken because he failed to consult with mr asa veda about his appellate rights after the recent and saying and he failed to file a notice of appeal the district court erred in denying the claim on grounds of the trial counsel could reasonably concluded that he did not have to consult with mr os of a doe about the right to appeal under florida's ortega counsel was required to consult with mr us of a toe under two circumstances if counsel thought that a rational defendant would want to appeal under the circumstances or secondly if counsel had if mr ross of a tow head reasonably demonstrated to his counsel that he in fact wanted the passage of the any terrorism and effective death penalty act that only applies a standard of review it doesn't change the substantive constitutional rule that was announced in floors or taken any more than for example the  reasons not to apply the p a in this case in this case one being that the last reasoned decision of the state court that of the superior court bypassed the federal constitutional issue it only address whether mr oscillator just mean we believe we conduct an independent review to determine whether there was an unreasonable implication well your honor if the court if that is not the same as the yes your honor under some circumstances but wilson  the case cited in the brief two thousand and eighteen that case talks about whether or not there is strong evidence that the last reasoned decision was then one of the california supreme court or the one of the superior court where the court decided to address the issue based only on the state law if the court were to determine that there is not strong evidence that the california supreme court decided the substantive constitutional claim we would argue that the last reasoned decision is the superior court which deliberately bypassed the federal constitutional issue and in those circumstances does the outcome of your petition turn in whether or not we appl way that the district court frame the issue was that the trial lawyer did not have to consult with mr ross of a toe if the trial lawyer thought that there wasn't a good grounds for appeal but that's not what flores says that counsel is supposed to do flore the prejudice analysis has only to do with whether or not the client's right to an appellate proceeding was actually defaulted and the court looks only to would this individual have in fact appealed if he had been given the nothing new there is nothing more than that i was able to obtain then what is then the lodge record this correction from the one forty to the one fifteen do you my guess was it had to do with the concurrent versus consecutive with regard to the vehicle it's hard to know because there is your honor because there is no record of the proceedings the court merely stated i am making a clerical correction so the court characterized it as being a clerical error the difference between the one forty and one hundred fifteen years so we don't know as to either of those hearings exactly what the court's reasoning was but the section six fifty four issue if there oscillators rights were reinstated it is eighty meritorious issue because under that section a person cannot be sentenced for the same course of conduct or for the same acts and here what we have is that what that the jury must found that property stolen property was that and at least that's how i understood the government's argument the government made that argument however i included in the supplemental excerpts of record the instructions that were given to the jury as well as the argument that was made by the district attorney and he urged the jury not to consider any more than one piece of stolen property and he said to them in order to convict mr asa beda of this charge you don't need to look at all these different separate pieces you only need to find that he possessed one piece of property so we just don't have a jury finding that he possess all of this property they didn't need to go there in order to return a conviction and it's more reasonable that so what oh well what do we what else are we going to find out the it's hard to know what counsel would have found out if he had done something that he didn't do but counsel himself made the argument in his own papers asking for appointment of investigator that it was critical for him to investigate her credibility to look into her background to find out perhaps she was the person who was stealing or obtaining the stolen property and she certainly had a strong motive an incentive to point the finger at someone else who typically in cases there was a lot more money when there's i mean about failure to investigate what we get is ok here's what or your honor and they spend lots of time with these things they don't need she orders from my office to respond informally unless there's some attention paid and so that happened here the claims were all raised and they were denied with the word you know count of receiving stolen property the state seemed to argue or acknowledge that there was a problem and the state court of appeal in its opinion said well we're getting rid of four can outs three are left receiving stolen one count as we see even stolen property which combined everything is left we're going to we're not going to really address this we're going to let the superior court address it in the first instance  ross of nato of all of the burglaries four of which were then reversed for reasons that had nothing to do with their it was that they were proved correct the jury necessarily found he possessed stolen property you know that was the basis for the burglary conviction the first time around so we know that he found that he had stolen property from four people whose burglary convictions were reversed by operation of law that were unrelated to the other burglary sent i don't necessarily know that but i don't think it matters because we know that there were four items found from four different people that he had the honor reasonable doubt and so when you look at the state sentencing  and we look at the claims that was presented to the california supreme for and they said deny the issues already been raised and rejected so now the court expressed some puzzlement as to what happened the second time around but they went back to the superior one puzzle to there's a lot of things that don't make sense here i think it's important for the court to recognize though that the reasons we don't understand that is birds and so the silence in the record regarding who told him what and when and what his lawyer said and whether there was a discussion about a future appeal or whether there was no discussion about her future appeal and stake in the superior court such as occurred here and there are two letters in the record from appellate defenders that say we're trying to help you and there's nothing more so that is very odd for me because they do good work and my office routinely does not oppose requests from them to file late notices appeal and so there's something missing here and that should be attributed to mr ross of ada and not the state but we don't need to go there to affirm the one minute on the clock wait thank you your honor counsel argued that the jury necessarily found that mr asa pedo possessed stolen property as to the four remaining counts that's not correct the elements of burglary don't require any finding that mr us of a to possess stolen property for purposes of returning a guilty verdict on that those counts they only were required to found to find that he entered the area unlawfully with the intent to steal or to commit another felony so there's no jury finding that he possessed stolen property that is necessarily attached to those burglary convictions the witness mr some allowed to testify that she received immunity i also want to address the the of after the court of appeal vacated the convictions because the standard under six fifty four it doesn't just look at the individual evidence it's the intent and objective of the defendant that is the issue and whether or not a six fifty four stay is required so what the trial court was required to do on the remained was not to parse whether or not there was particular pieces of property that were that were possessed that were attached to burglary convictions and if they matched up that that was disallowed that's not how the analysis works the court is supposed to look at whether there was one overarching objective that was common to all the remaining counts and if that's true then he can only be