days whether what he wants to do is withdraw his plea or whether what he wants to do is get an order from us that he's eligible for parole in twenty years you want something from from him  why that's well let's say that we implement said to bella by giving him a option where and when does he have to exercise his options i presumably would be sent back to the trial court and how could we do that it's not up from the need the same argument that it's strictly up to the board of prison terms whether to grant the role or not and in brown versus poole the court said well that's needy so that you made a deal and that may be a problem for you but it is not a problem for brown if he is not afforded the option all they will lose he is he's off he's plea deal because all that state court would have to do what is clearly and too bad but you're probably up to end up doing that twenty five years in the real problem is for me anyway we don't compare in advance i don't know about my colleagues  and he looks like a really dangerous guy well he did after then although my information most recent information is he has no discipline in prison maybe they're bigger guys in prison but he's a pretty rough on his girlfriend  that on the other hand well we don't know and what we have to do is consider if he goes back into the trial court and is making that decision he have to the rest of the some legal research because my understanding the law has changed somewhat since then and there may be more the law may be for more favorable for him under certain circumstances so it would be something he got to do with the advice of counsel and counsel would probably have to research what the absolute law so i gather what you're saying that's why you're really not prepared to say i want specific performance of the deal i want to withdraw clearly you want to remand with instructions to grant to read and writ that with the was no involuntary anyway well that's true but he said a bellow state and brown versus pull all these cases state in the terms of the remedy is either to withdraw the police or to whether we ca at least the court for responding counsel is there anything to stop us from ordering specific performance so that he is eligible for parole and gets his parole reviews starting at twenty years instead of twenty five we would submit this court does not have the jurisdiction to order the department of corrections and rehab in court did order specific form that's what i'm asking but we agree they did we don't agree that there was the authority to do that but it appears that this court decided to orders the wrong weight of the state court and they did i  didn't make myself clear i know that underground versus pool we can just order specific for performance site brown and goodbye i don't have a federal law issue that we don't co follow it i don't know what happened in the brown the pool case and the other cases where they don't really know i don't know i'm assuming it's fall out well i gather what you're saying though is just for my own clarification you think brown was incorrectly decided in terms of the power of the federal courts but here we are we're bound by that and that's our operating thing you didn't want to concede that argument and like but under the we would seem to have that and it's in this case it isn't and i think we all understand this but we're talking about a parole eligibility hearing not an early release date release date of twenty years we're talking about an eligibility hearing at eighty percent of the time or twenty years rather than twenty five of course my argument i'm not going to concede that that's the term of this contract or that somehow he was eighty percent or one hundred percent of their sentences and a few years later the california supreme court came out with a case and clarified that there was some misunderstanding and so the statement that was made on the record in this case made as a result of that if i don't what you're saying is the judge really thought he'd be eligible for parole in twenty and that's what he's telling right and i think the district attorney and the defense attorney also thought everybody everybody thought so and i think it happened in other no you don't have a right to be informed of it under u s supreme court authority hill versus la carte so that it doesn't affect your release date effects that might affect your release date but we argue that it's collateral and that there is no difference or there's no authority for a difference between this kind of a misstatement and not being informed of it at all and i think the thirty for that there is no authority there is no authority cited that says this type of a misstatement is any different then not being informed at all serve one third of his term before parole eligibility on the record explaining that case was ineffective assistance of counsel because counsel had told the defendant that he would serve only one third turned out collateral consequence the court did find no prejudice in that case from the misstatement by coun let's see until i think the state didn't tell him one way or the other when he was eligible for parole and he says my week is no good because i wasn't told when i'd be eligible he was that right no  this i don't have the case in front of me but it's parole eligibility as that is a collateral consequence and we don't find that that's not a constitutional violation  ultimately in hill they found no prejudice on his ineffective assistance claim in the language of defendant alleged no special circumstances here that might support the conclusion that he placed particular emphasis on his parole eligibility  deciding whether or not to plead guilty so there's no death so they didn't directly address the misstatement at the trial court but clearly there was a mistake by the trial court as as there was by the defense counsel which  if there is no further question i would say  really a question of has he shown prejudice in hill do you recall it sounds like my recollection scrambled whether he was mis advised or not advised or whether it was mis advised but his point was that he was not advised or what all i recall about the answer is bottom line is i don't know for sure i just recall him saying my counsel gave me the wrong advice if i recall correctly my counsel is different from the court it is and whether or not that was a part of the  was thinking recollection today i think there are one or two nights or cases that say the same thing the defendant does have a liberty interest in the parole eligibility date