today would be focusing my argument on the insufficient for a one in management as well as the denial of counsel at sentencing that would be happy to take questions on the other issues as well as supreme court namely the nature of the charge and the minimal a maximum sentence of this result i could get right to something that happened this sub this particular trial was the second of a trial where mr think given that there was no conviction why why do you think in this case that there wasn't substantial compliance i still think even though that other trial occurred and he represent the new proceeding it's a completely new trial i think the judge still has to have it at the scotian with them and make sure he understands he have a discussion with him not you know say we've been through all of this he was given all the charges on the previous case and and believe me i feel parties an opportunity suffer but i think it's it's vital that we have because whether this the judge gave to him or not i recall there's a discussion about let's be specific about this case nature of the charges and the balance and he was given this paper so if you want to for the state i really believe that either  it works against you for not putting it in the record and then it's almost like a waiver problem for picture or we see it and then we decide whether this was sufficient for the judge apparently it's what they were what the parish work and the penalties are in this two page back but even even as i said even if it's correct the judge never got over it he said here's the document so the next time i want you to ask any questions question raised by the defendant because here the defendant is standing there as he has would counsel and certainly you don't have to raise your hand to get permission to ask a question you simply ask a question and and to the extent has not yet but you now have made a determination that he's able to waive his right to the burden shouldn't be on him they have to come in and say i don't understand explain it to me the burden should be on the judge under the rule to ensure that th penalties was presented in open court i still would like to see that and then the trial court said this is again all right it is a two page document defendant will be provided with a copy of now the judge then says and please make sure you read it and you read that review that you don't understand anything and we can through part of this you're arguing he never had an opportunity but this is this is judge symonds now who has asked him in open court are you going to continue representing yourself he says yes i am just going a little further before we get to this next court date there were various things mentioned but the defendant didn't talk about you know he didn't have any questions now but then he we have a wall stretch of time where he did pretrial motions discovery and continuances where he has spread presenting himself so i mean what would you and then there was that break where he wanted to hear assistance of counsel to process one of the state's witnesses and the judge said if you no longer want to be representing yourself you're going to have appointed counsel you need to tell me that can't ask for a lawyer to come in and just do a little bit of piecemeal part of the case that's not going to happen you've gone through an extensive amount of questioning basically by judge simmons asking that you were capable and wanted to represent you u i guess what i want to get to is all right we've got a defendant who's represented himself out of one trial and now he's going to be there isn't a no the new trial and the judge has indicated are you still representing yourself so he says yes and then he's given everything so is that not enough well i don't think he was given everything i mean he may have been given this document but he wasn't given the benefit of candor with the judge  facing here at this separate trial because he wasn't given the same kind of conversation that he had prior to that other trial well now i'm the spire army and that's why i really would be curious to know what was in th right and i mean it i guess as a matter of we don't know we don't know if it was correct information that they gave him but assuming it was private stuff to make sure he understands that i mean it's complicated it's complicated and they should have discussed  we do with the fact that you didn't put the stack right well even if you if you believe that you know we have waived the consideration of whether or not it was right i think in the square can still address whether the seumas cry because it's our our or assume it's cracked is that enough to just have this paper and not have a conversation with him to see if you understand that and this you know determine that he understands what's going on all right and what would be your best case for us to look at it but it would the best when you think it's well i mean it's more it's more i would say it's more about you know i guess it's it's whether you think this i just think the papers not enough now aside from what happened at the first your office wants to file a document or wants to file a motion and you give counsel a copy of that motion but doesn't it fall on you your office the moving party the party that wants to  be assisted by what it's filing to make sure that that document a copy of that document gets into the record so if you did it's your office that sought to give mr toy something that would benefit your office to make sure that mr toit had all this knowledge and yet your office did not provide an additional copy for the judge for the record and i'm not so sure that it should fall on the defendant the burden of completing the record in this instance maybe it's really your office that fell short your honor the people would be tane that it is the defendant's burden to provide a complete record for this court's review and no what mr defendant to do read it and then submitted for the record i mean what doesn't he get a chance doesn't he get a cut doesn't he get to keep a copy of that document and if he gets to keep a copy of that document why don't you give them to him and he'll get document this document the state did recover that document in preparation for oral argument is filed stamped october twelfth two thousand and six it was part of the record wasn't it just wasn't included in this record ye was one of the documents that he was given yes your honor i'm it i'm told were thirty first two thousand and five on the initial case which also included the indictment on the instant matter defendant was tendered a copy of the four separate indictments and the the list of possible sentences so he was tendered the nature of the charges and the sentences and it is our position that defendant knowingly and intelligently proceeded pro se and was found guilty  may two thousand and six after he proceeded to say by the jury and your honor justice mcbride you did bring up that there were two different judges here in this case in you did well i knew there were two different judges but i i i  wasn't aware when the transition to life yes it is slightly unclear in the record but when that two page document was time heard was by judge simmons and about three weeks later judge obus stated you find through an extensive amount of questioning basically by judge simmons and assisting that you were capable and wanted to represent yourself was this during the trial or just during one of the motion this was during one of the pretrial motions so it's clear that judge after to find it was found guilty in may of two thousand and seven he made a motion to postpone the sentencing date and thereafter there were several continuance states put on there that not state after he made a motion sentencing he requested a public defender and a public defender was appointed to defend it there are four defendants argument that the trial court refused to allow him to revoke his waiver is completely inaccurate he was appointed a public abusive nature contemptuous conduct violent and it's been depicted nature of the state would submit proof that he was he waved his counsel again and then knowingly and intelligent way preceded p say and this is this is obvious when there was discussions used between the defendants pro se motion for new trial and his public defenders motion for a new trial doesn't matter as far as this is yet that firearm that here the people would disagree a similar issue is currently pending before the supreme court and people view washington the people argue that in september and that's an imminent decision what does washington give us  three your honor in washington it's similar facts here we have a i don't know that we can get into rule twenty three here we don't if it was never published and you're getting those facts from the rule twenty three or you're or b b gun and here we did not have a gun that was recovered defendant approach the two victims with a gun the victim's credibly testified that it was cocked in this jacket had the barrel out there was no doubt it was a felt i'm sorry but forgetting the facts in this rule twenty three what is the issue before the supreme court regarding is this to sis have anything to do with the pro state defendant and the great deal of information is there a more restrictive or is that is that is the substantial compliance a lot less when the waiver of counsel occurs post trial i mean it doesn't make any sense to it has the defendant or or maybe it does make sense to you to go over the same information that the judge would have been required to do pre because here we got we he he is appointed counsel and he rejects counsel goes pro se this is all at sentencing yes i'm sure the rule he read as requiring as much post trial tell the defendant that he has a right to an attorney at no cost and begin these admonishments again when the defendant launched into a number of profanities and of sanity's and abusive nature and his public defender the go wrong part talks about you have the right to thirty three of her that was i mean that state sue is trying to the trial court brought him back to make sure he was acting a bit more rationally and the defendant refused to answer any questions  instead making a number of frivolous motions and inappropriate procedural attempts therefore the trial court found that the defendant conduct was showing that he was proceeding pro se but what was it about that there was nothing insufficient about it your honor it was it was clear that defendant was proceeding pro se and this was a knowing and intelligent waiver and it's clear that his conduct was accommodated by this trial we have a defendant who also used dilatory tactics to prevent insulate sentencing and the supreme court stated that recognize that it is important for the defendant to have his right to counsel by it define it cannot abuse that right it's what the administration of justice were embarrassed the effective prosecution of crime and as your honour's pointed out the defendant here had on clean hands and he chooses to ban a fish from from an alleged error of the trial court which he invited through his very own contemptuous abusive contact and the people would request that this court affirm defendant's convictions and is it your contention that it wasn't substantially complied with for sentencing either well or that were or is there something to your state's argument that he prevented it f made was representing myself this trial he knew that he couldn't handle sentencing on his own he knew that he couldn't do it and that that's why he needed to have a church but he didn't have an attorney and he didn't like that term for him that actually was for the motion for a new trial and he did not have