morning would like to do is explain why you don't need to address that complex question of the stand your view because under any standard whether you ply you know over a review or that differential standard earlier the district attorney had offered seven years and at that time counsel advised her client not to take that deal and at that time she did not understand that he was facing actually two strikes on his record as opposed to one strike the fact that later after she learned that he had more strikes she gave him good advice to take eleven years really does not address the fact that she gave him incompetent advice and earlier stage when he  that offer the state court of appeals also put great weight on the fact that the advice that she originally gave and take it to take the seven year offer was based on  what they described as three sources corroborating that there was only one strike the rap sheet the complaint and the defendant himself and his ex wife who went to mass which might she have they were also attached to pleadings file during the new trial motion proceedings it was entirely clear which documents they were one of the matters i mean it's one more or less clarified the other one of them is shows that there warrant does not tell the attorney whether it's a strike or not you can not determine that without looking at the records in fact later when we get to the information that's filed if the pulmonary hearing  court struggle with that in fact there's an appeal pending addressing soley on the question of relief i would with saying there's strong support in these situations that specific performance is what my client gets it and again we well they limit the prosecution well the prosecution made that offer had to put the public back in his shoes where he would have been you would have to to have the da we offer that but and then we don't know what happens then the project says no well that's somebody else's problem well a lot of things have changed one thing my client's already served more than seven years he's already got credit for more than eleven years if the three strikes initiative amendment passes tomorrow everything changes and if you put him back where he was negotiations will be made with an understanding that he has no strikes well you actually said you w the charges anew and could target a new go to trial again problem with that is he's had one trial it's not much of a remedy for him to go back and have another trial the remedy would be really that was certainly an unanswered question by the courts there were some hints about it looking at the statutes in that you had brought in tried language in a subdivision a of the statute which existed prior to three strikes law that language is not put weapon if it was a strike it's that if you actually cause great bodily bodily injury it's a strike but if you merely used force likely to cause great bodily injury it's not a strike with a rap sheet and know your honor that there was a finding by the trial judge which must be presumed correct that no judge on the bench would have accepted that seven year offer petitioners burton to come forward under case but the circuits themselves are split as to whether or not one has to look at what they were not the plea would have been accepted and so therefore it becomes reasonable to look at that in the state courts analysis another position that i would argue is that you do have the determination up on the record by the trial court at the motion for a new trial hearing and if also if you look carefully your honor at the opinion of the court of appeal they say that whether it is ruling that is outside the bounds of reason under the a political law as well as under the facts that are relevant facts that are presented to it that's how they determine whether or not there was an abuse of discretion and that clearly indicates they're looking at it through the the problem for mr jones is that the da at any point up until a trial judge theoretically would have accepted this seven your clear agreement and that's simply for fact that's exactly what happened and mr jones when he had it explained to him that he was facing the twenty five year sentence and had an opportunity then to take the eleven year deal based on the amendment of the years but the playing field is different the d a had at that point realized that this was in fact a potential to strike case and had charged out as such and you find the trial judge encouraging mr jones very strongly prior to going to trial saying are you sure you want to reject this deal and mr jones says yes no i want to go to trial and i would submit that there is a very strong and i didn't have much confidence a house fire i had a pretty good reason to not have much confidence in his mind whether or not he has confidence in his lawyer your honor is is not material to the issue of whether or not he can establish prejudice at this point in time and the lawyer your honor was not the one advising him during that colloquy strongly advising him that he needed to take that plea offer of eleven years it was a trial judge and i would submit that the defendant even if the senate has little faith in his on the district attorney to go back and reexamine this case and and see whether or not it would be in fact charge out against the two strike cases and point try to make your honour's at the district attorney could have withdrawn that offer even after mr jones that said yes we'll take it and still judge approves the offer there's nothing to prevent the district attorney under california law from saying no i made a mistake i'm withdrawing that offer no your honor not not until the deal is actually put in place that obviously would hurt has the potential to hurt the district attorney's credibility in dealing with the spencer turn each but until that  anything that happens tomorrow the election he will still have had served actually over twelve years with credit in prison which is more than the seven years that was recently offered more than eleven years that was offered the second time eleven made with knowledge of all the facts that's correct a seven year deal was made under a mistake of fact by both sides so it's not too hard to get back to say well if we put him back where he would have expected here the