he was acquitted of four counts and there was a lawyer who made a decision that the guy didn't have a defense to being in possession of the weapon and i'm not sure and i don't hear you telling me what evidence there was that he didn't get that he testified at the trial i don't know whether he testified at trial i think he was available to testify at trial and the fact is whether or not there was evidence of that in order for his attorney to have to have admitted those charges he would have had to  concession in closing argument whether or not there was no evidence that he possessed it is i think immaterial he could have presented no evidence and still demanded that the prosecution bears the burden of showing evidence showing thing i understood it to be asking for additional information from coroner regarding the question of whether he had waived his he had waved his argument that there were not adequate under our case law and case goes back that's true and here then about a summary asked you to to brief that to share your views on that and you didn't even raise it into your reply very what i understood the supplemental brief to be it would apply in fact the corner decision itself has a long discussion on the waiver issue that time please expound on page ten forty eight and ten forty nine of the decision i spend a lot of counsel being dismissed by mr corner and ultimately mr corner rather eerily arguing from the only state prison before this court through the loud speaker systems of which was an interesting experience the court found captains of their litigation and they did not present that argument at all even after valleri on even after a corner and even after this court asked for supplemental briefing and actually pointed the processes involved in the decision by the attorney to make the argument that he did that without going to require an evidentiary hearing because of what the facts were not developed in the state court they were not developed in the federal court procedural bar process instead the litigation strategy all the way through was to try to show cause and prejudice to overcome the procedural bar they never said this is an adequate procedural bar for any reason so true should be the victim of  to effective assistance of counsel on trial and direct appeal then mr cruz bears that burden let me let me make sure some of the procedural history here you want to understand correctly that mr cruz who was sentenced in nevada is no longer serving his time in nevada that is correct on his he was paroled honestly that's not so he still on parole i honestly i think he still on his nevada parole he may have problems with the state of california but murder charge i don't think it really does the times were sort of contemporary right and i think the argument would be that the that the attempted murder charge didn't depend on that argument that that the and any future sense in those will be additional issues on his record that he will have to address one way or another now you know it's as a sense in body going to going to just say well you know he has he has an attempted murder here you know we're not going to consider those two those are going to pile on to it i don't think so i think that the existence of additional felonies as and apparently prejudicial to him i don't think you can is your argument that will raised in