part of the inducement or consideration such promise must be fulfilled here that didn't happen instead the state reached the plea agreement going directly to the breach in the plea agreement the state promised that in exchange for mr quero giving up the vast majority of its constitutional rights and pleading guilty he could receive no more than fourteen years and four months it was a written plea agreement signed by mr clara signed by mr close lawyer signed by the state prosecutor and signed by the judge well is there anything in california which prohibits amending a plea agreement before judgment or before the sentences imposed due process understand developed prohibits not the statutes so that the government well what the start of the statue what what what is permissible under california law under nine sixty nine point five one of the thrust of the state's argument  a conviction is not listed on the charging document it can be amended with permission of the court to include the conviction here not only one of the two forty five listed but it's it's a bit of a mis direction argument your hon or and let me explain why because the nature of a plea agreement is bargaining away the right to do something that the state or the defendant could otherwise do under the law you bargained away your right to trial exactly you bargain away your rights once judgment is entered no no your honor that would be a in the defense context the defendant would enter into the plea agreement and if he or she breached the the state would come back and be able to get whatever remedies it could get but in the context of due process understand to bellow once there's a breach we have different remedies and this really i think yesterday was it make  the states appear car excepted the first plea agreement and all that was to be done but sentencing person to that green it does make a difference in that it helps our case but even if that hadn't happened i believe i would still be making the same argument so what precisely is the breach the contents of breaches this state moving to the men after the play agreement had been accepted moving to a ended there by increasing the maximum sentence beyond the fourteen years and four months agreed upon and as we see what exactly what happened mr cora wound up with twenty five to life because of that if i could just go back to this nine sixty nine point five argument because it's critical and this case and this court has ruled on it multiple times if i could point to the davis case and i know judge or lawyer on the panel the davis case case says that the state that was a case about the three strikes law and the the state had bargained away its right to use the conviction as more than one strike even though under state law that was entirely permissible even though under state law it could have counted as more than one strike the state could have done exactly what it did under the state statutes but this court health no you can't do that under santa belo you can't do that you the right the state must live with the particular bargain that it made for subversive could you go over with me where these objections were made below when after the plea was accepted and the state then brought this other these other charges what was objected to at that time the amending of the complaint was objected to by the state prosecutor they went back and forth in the state state start trial a defense attorney said look you knew about this conviction all along says it's not in a different district it's not in a different city it's not even in a different courthouse you have an ineffective assistance of counsel claim there were this court to say look mr  properly preserve this video or didn't the preservative he preserved it i would argue by making that argument about that the state shouldn't be permitted to amend bu and this is a big but there is no requirement that he preserve it below and i'll point to the bonbon case of buckley gone and davis in buckley louis let me just ok let's assume it was preserved at the trial court ok what was the next i gather it wasn't raised in the briefs it was raised as the potential issue for the court to consider on its essential a on its own in the california court of appeal did what i said we do not we consider the record and we do not find it to be an arguable issue and what that would be right there would be full stop that would be the unreasonable up acacia on the supreme court's list case it's the one that your honor y l z the supreme court makes perfectly clear that when it's been raised on direct appeal there's no further exhaustion necessary and if i can make two other points because it is an important issue one the state has not only not argued to the contrary it has conceded in its state's response to the federal habeas petition that these this issue is somewhat of a mystery because the magistrate judge's decision somehow concludes there was no promise of fourteen years and four months and i think this is if i could step back and just be candidly some of the problem of having not appointed didn't really reach this issue whether i don't know why i'm not going to speculate but if i could go back to your honest question so we have the state we haven't raised below but we understate the firm of concession and not for lack of no procedural bar here more than that though your honor in buckley beyond our case the breach claim wasn't raised until eight years later on on state happiest eight years later in gone it wasn't raised at the time of sentencing and in davis which  i relied on heavily this breach claim wasn't raised until the hay b s before the california supreme court in all of those three it wasn't raised at all below nevertheless the due process violation was clear as it is in this case i'm the outcome was clear in each of those decisions the petition for the great writ was granted and in several specific performance was the remedy i see that i have just under two minutes i violation occurred or there has to be a promise by the prosecution which induces entering into a guilty plea and a breach the pleas that came about under established california practice is the pleading to she procedure which is actually the way it's the pleading to she procedure which is it's actually a promise to the court the defendant pleads guilty to the charges and exposure that could have occurred as a result of that plea but the plea is actually to the court the plea for me itself state that there are no deals with the people promised and that is page fourteen factoring the change of plea hearing the trial court made it clear that there were no deals with the people except that his maximum exposure as this is crafted would be fourteen years at that time honor and then he winds up getting twenty five to life or even does after the discovery that the assault with a deadly weapon the two to forty five was listed as part of one o prosecution no no your honor it's not that simple always to be able to find these priors and that's the reason why why it's not simple to find prior because often the packets are in different areas the probation office sometimes has more information than the prosecution does initially will be a major deal too soon you didn't know who you're dealing with but that's your fault as a no no your honor and that's why nine sixty nine point five exists to allow when ever that's discovered and that was done within a month after the guilty p and again there was there was no promise at that time by the prosecution let alone no breach and the only way that statement had to do with what it would have been the maximum sensing exposure at that time and the police is not violence or if you have it easy giving up  procedure pleading sheet he pled to both counts which was the driving under the influence he also pled to being a felon in possession of a firearm he emitted the great bodily injury and the previous driving under the influence egregious and it probably will lead to a maximum sentence so that's what he gave up and that's what he was able to do upon learning of the additional strikes it was amended and there he got a deal where the second challenge was dismissed which would have been an additional twenty five years of life to serious felony priors were also dismissed which would give him ten more years plus a four prison prior to the exposure of sixty four to life was bargain at that counts and then out the audio that's what it is what's the sheet the sheet is the charging doctor charging document i'm sorry yes exactly but there was a plea agreement nonetheless is that right there was a plea the sheet with the court yes and again you one thing you're telling  something else that there was there is a plea agreement with with yes with the court at that time the prosecutor does assign it to the prosecutor doesn't the prosecutor basically then goes into sentencing and that's why i'm with the people and so since there were no deals with people under that procedure there was no breach there was nothing affirmative that was done by by the people at that time to create a breach understand thank your honor ok number one this is not the idea that there are no deals with the government is disingenuous and i use that word it is a question i have because see no deal with people that deal with the people is not to recommend a specific sentence that's why council gets to say that the deal limits the deal is limiting the maximum otherwise as the court noted he's not getting any bargain the bargain is the limitation it's not no you facing if he hadn't made this deal he was facing i believe pled at the time he pled guilty the first time well as he faces the time he pled guilty i believe it's in the state's brief i think it's thirty i think the state has thirty five to life but for the plea deal the plea to the shooter whatever you want to call it the bottom line is he was looking at thirty and he worked out an arrangement where he would only get a maximum of fourteen that's my that's my understanding your honor that's what the state says in its brief and he actually got twenty five to life got twenty five to life because and the other point i want to make is in my timely filed twenty a letter about the aman case and the ongoing case says exactly what the court was talking to my opponent about which is the idea that if you can find a fact out you don't get to void the plea agreement if you are the state and that's in line with this court case law as well thank you counsel your time has expired the case just argued will be submitted for a decision