morning may please the court harrison lead on behalf of william reed's i think a good response to the state's arguments in this case is provided by justice stevens  which was cited in the state's brief justice stevens said that quote certain constitutional rights are not and should not be subject to harmless error analysis because those rights protect important values that are unrelated to the truth seeking function of the trial the state's argument is basically that the error in this case really didn't affect the outcome because after all the kind of pleaded guilty the trial court conducted time that the judge or put on the record her feelings about the case and made the statement she wouldn't proceeded but for the fact that she's not going to exercise any discretion making it very clear that she was was going like she was going to to impose a sentence and your client elected to proceed under those circumstances that's correct your honor he shorted in the faces upon which the district court in th and yet we all know right to counsel can be waved an uncertain title indeed they have an affirmative right to represent themselves so the fact that up a given area might be deemed structural doesn't mean it's not w should be because different interests are involved than merely the truth seeking function of the trial and an interest of the entitle judge in c of a proceeding let's suppose that trial juror supreme actually that it is that's one of the things if you have a juror who is biased can be demonstrated later on there are lots of limitations on that that's one of the places where prejudice need not be demonstrated you're entitled for an unbiased hamel well i  supreme court case clearly stating that a defendant cannot wave the back to the judge is biased when i searched for  waive that bias is that ever i'm afraid i don't have any authority whatsoever much less a already from the supreme court it's unusual that actual sighting in and out makes it difficult so we understand you have to reach out for analogies but we are constrained by the objective and reasonable as a hard standard is the fact of life what happens under under the statute behaviors cases today what's the closest you can come to that that would give us something to work with in support of your client's position in terms of a supreme court decision that that you argue that the state courts ran afoul of that that this is a non waive a bill error or or you can go back to structural if you to the error is found on that laundry list of structural errors then that's the end of the discussion no i don't have any authority about waiver because and the reason is that usually when a judge announces that he is not impartial then  an ordinary defendant would say i'd like to have another judge and that's what happened so i don't know that that's why there's no case law on the issue is the most unusual of actual sightings but but frankly it was a judge or he could have gotten up there and  commented on that she made it very clear put on the record advised everybody of her feelings about that it just happened in the same courthouse to you all the people involved and said i would go for it only because i'm just going to enter what the parties have agreed to now there is a debate as to whether she actually could have exercise some discretion in terms of what the agreement sad but in her statement she made it clear look this is what i'm going to enter this is a sentence i'm going to impose and to do that because that's what they've all agreed to i'm not exercising discretion on some level maybe she's she was exercising discretion but but by letting everybody know what she plans to do that gave the defendant the opportunity to make the decision ok do i want to object to this or not and the selection was not and so we come back to the same problems or is there some reason why defendant and candy are you are the maze i'm not trying to ask you to repeat that is there any other reason why we shouldn't say this defendant has the ability to decide i want to get this over with i want to go forward i don't think any judge of the state's going to treat me any better whatever else i i don't know everything that i haven't said already i've exhausted your time there please the court stephen powers for the superintendent given the record and supports the state post conviction court's finding a petition or knowingly and intelligently entered into this plea agreement and applying the section twenty three fifty four and would have been so difficult to get out of county judge to come in and do the sentencing that you know it it might not have been it's small county a lot of the judges know each other and you know shipping in another judge from a different county could have been possible but that's why judge or explained this is my feeling this is what's going on i'm going to let you know that and if you want to continue because the fence council and the prosecutor brought so given that the judge didn't exercise any real discretion in accepting this plea and given that petitioner in his state post conviction proceeding doesn't attack the voluntariness of his plea and fully acknowledged in his deposition that he understood what he was pleading to the state dismissed some serious charges or counts of first degree robbery which carries mandatory minimum sentences  air superintends position that we don't even need this court doesn't need to go in that direction and whether it applies or whether it doesn't given what petitioner has developed for the record as  court proceedings but even if it does fission or hypothetical i think doesn't drive really at it's not the legitimacy of the court whether the court has authority in this hypothetical of someone an structural error i believe it's chapman talks about  that any cut and maybe it's not chapman that a defendant has the right to waive any constitutional right so like right there jury trial which is clear a criminal defendant has the well i think it goes along with again like the right to counsel that you want to make sure that a criminal defendant has all legal arguments presented in and understands when they're taking a plea or waiving trial they're waving the state having to prove by beyond a reasonable doubt amongst their peers there is still that public interest they're making sure that that prosecution has fulfilled the constitutional role demands of what it means to be found guilty of a cry and so again the same analysis would apply petitioner can say i know i understand all of that and i want to move on i know if you ship in a judge from a different county we're going to be still entering the stipulated agreement nothing's going to change i want to continue in fact addition or said this is only one battle and this was going to continue on petitioners claim that his sentence was was due harsh and that he didn't know what he was entering into in the state post conviction deposition again that he said i understood what i was entering into and so that that