fourteen times with that court's authorization that he was only seventeen years old and that is argued in a motion to suppress to statement to the police had limited education and he had a mental disability that required medication despite these red flags the trial court here performed a perfunctory plea canvass that lasted only three and a half minutes as a result the record does not show the mr mayo's guilty plea was knowing and intelligent the trial court here failed ask basic questions the trial court did not ask mr males level of education did not ask whether he was on any medication and did not ask any questions following up on the psychological treatment that it had authorized  court done so the full extent of mr males deficit's could have been exposed and it would have become clear that mr mayo did not understand the police or its consequences the court could have discovered that this was a seventeen year old with severe intellectual deficit he had i q scores of sixty six dollars sixty seven cents have a designated learning disabled since the age of seven and at the age of seventeen when he was pleading guilty he was reading at the th grade had also been perscribe an anti psychotic which was causing him to black out in an anti depressant but the court failed to ask basic questions to start down the road of inquiring into whether this guilty plea was knowing and intelligent the supreme court has clearly established that it is constitutional error for the trial court to take a guilty plea without ensuring on the record that it is knowing and intelligent meaning that this defendant actually factual determination which provide an independent basis for genova review under two thousand two hundred and fifty four d two most stark is that on the appeal from the denial of mr mayo's post conviction petition the nevada supreme court said that he hadn't specified what medication he had been for scribed when he had explicitly said he had been prescribed erik will which is an anti psychotic and ramrod which is an anti depressant so the record belied the nevada supreme court's contention supreme court also said that the trial court at the motion to withdraw mr mayo's guilty plea did not air because it looked at the entire record and there was no evidence that this plea wasn't knowing and intelligent but at the time of the motion to withdraw there was lots of evidence in the record to show that this was not knowing and intelligent beyond the fourteen transportation orders there was the sixty seven i q score the fact that he was learning disabled that his reading level was at the  th grade level that he had received social security benefits for a mental disability and that when confronted with tasks that were too difficult for him he did not ask for help but because of his deficit simply shut down so we're we're here yes your honor and we have to be extraordinarily deferential to the state courts and in particular the nevada supreme court here who did a fairly rigorous review of your arguments and a change of plea and in fact isn't it true that the nevada supreme court did such things as look at the psychological evaluation of your client to see if there's any indications in the psychological evaluation that he may not be competent to enter a plea and of course they observed that there was nothing within the psychological reports which reflected on his competence it the nevada supreme court look at the interview that he had with the police and apparently during the course of this interview which was of course subject to the motion to suppress he was very l candid about the nature of his defense and the nature of the facts in general and so they're for based upon the entire picture including those reports and those i have a few responses your honor st the claim was not the mr mayor wasn't competent to plead guilty and this is the distinction and the distinction from the argument the state made and it's inspiring brief the supreme court and dinos versus moran clarified that the question of competence is whether the defendant is capable of pleading guilty capable of understanding the guilty plea as compared to whether the defendant actually did understand the guilt plea in this case and were arguing the latter and that's what was argued before in state court and what the nevada supreme court said on review is that the trial court at the motion to withdraw had looked at all the evidence and said there's nothing there to show this wasn't knowing in intelligence so the trial court didn't abuse its discretion but again there was lots there that did show that and it may not have risen to the level of mr mayor not being competent but there was our story incompetent but there was lots of evidence in the record that informs whether or not this plea was knowing and intelligent if this is someone with a th grade reading level and the canvas is complicated it's filled with legally there's nothing in there the breaks it down into ordinary language that's not something he's going to be able to understand and as to his interrogation with the police which is something nevada supreme court didn't mention but the district court here the federal district court did the fact that he's able to have a colloquial conversation with the police about his lived experiences doesn't mean that he later is going to be able at that point is to have an expert witness come in and say well based upon these particular medications they would have such and such an impact on the ability to understand a change of plea and as a result there may be expert testimony that this medication would impact that ability but in fact there was no evidence at all about the impact of the various medications he was on in his ability  of concern so mr mayo asked for a hearing in the state court and wasn't afforded one he asked for a hearing at the motion to withdraw stage and also at his post conviction petition and he had met the standard for a hearing he had put forth specific allegations that were not to live for the record by the record that if they were true would entitle him to relief and then the state court did not grant him an eviden y hearing so the court could find that if that type of evidence was dispositive then the appropriate remedy would be to remain and to the district court for a hearing and that court if i could reserve the rest of my time on thank you indicated to the district court state district court that there was any basis to question whether he understood what he was doing and in fact the plea itself met the mandates of the of the u alabama it demonstrated that he understood the nature of the elements against him the rights he was waiving by pleading guilty and the possible punishments he faced and that was really all that was required he done it demonstrated he understood waiving nothing at the time of the plea prevented the state district court from accepting it and determining it was voluntary and there was no obligation to ask questions that would have revealed this information no you're not you know your honor not under blake and boy can merely says that you have to you have to be aware of the nature and elements of the charges the rights that are being waived and the punishment those faced every one of those criteria was met in this matter well wasn't wasn't meaning he's incapable of understanding it he kind of looks like he's understanding but those those questions don't necessarily establish what you just needed to be used to your own or taken into consideration though that he also had counsel who made who advised him about the rights he was waving and what he was entering into i believe the totality of the record demonstrates that he did meet that criteria and in fact and at the record at page four  his appointed counsel for the motion to withdraw us explains to the court that mr mayo does not dispute that his attorneys consulted with him about this plea nor does he dispute that the plea canvas was adequate he merely said that he after the fact claims he didn't understand what the court looked at what the state court looked at after the fact when it came to the motion to withdraw was the fact that he was under state law it was  the extensive juvenile crisp criminal history that this defendant had entered had engaged in this defendant was not a stranger to the criminal justice system although this was his st adult adjudication for murder he had faced serious plea agreements contain the identical information and waiver of rights that the adult waivers to and your honors when it comes to the motion to suppress which was it which was referenced earlier on his statement to the police which as judge sessions mentioned indicated a lucid individual who was in and able to spar with law enforcement the motion of the press was based on his status as a juvenile not his missed not his inability to understand and not his inability to speak to law enforcement it was the fact that law enforcement had given him a waiver of rights for the adult and didn't tell him or allegedly did not tell him that he had the right to have a parent present that was the basis of the motor of the motion to suppress the to taking drugs or medication before the change of plea there was no colloquy in which he said he never got any promises or threats prior to the change of pl i mean there was there was a problem in the plea colloquy but then of course you look at the whole situation to make a determination as to voluntariness and knowing waivers and  that is correct your honor and the plea colloquy he does indicate that he did so freely and voluntarily and that no one made any promises to him although the plea called we did not go into his education the plea agreement itself which buttresses what was done colloquy did indicate that he was not under at that time under the medication that would have been impeded his ability to understand i may be wrong i thought i thought there was no question that he was asked about whether he was subjected to threats or promises prior to the change of play which is a standard question in rule eleven but i may be wrong or wrong there i believe that there is i'm trying to look at the colloquy very quickly  the court does ask in the court does ask is anyone forcing you to plead guilty today and he does say no are you making this plea freely and voluntarily because you want to yes he answers appropriately the court does ask appropriate questions and this is distinct there is a distinction between the rule eleven requirements because this is a state case and so what we're following is the mandate of boy what did it what did we ask at the time we asked whether he understood the rights he was giving up whether he was doing so freely whether  understood the charges against him and he did because we are because this is on federal habeas review the question is whether this was an unreasonable to terminations of clearly established federal law and i submit that it was not the nevada supreme court clearly looked at the record as a whole relied on the findings of the have impulse control problems and also cannot learn from their past and in fact here are some of mr mayo's deficits our memory deficits we can't assume that because he pled guilty before and circumstances that are different as a juvenile court that means that he understood now also the idea that his counsel appropriately advised him would you have the uncertified claim of ineffective assistance in his pro se motion to withdraw mr may i was said counsel didn't explain this to me and so and then new counsel on the council of motion to withdraw so that he had to explain it to him several times and then mr mail was adamant that he did not want to plead guilty so we can't on this record assume the trial counsel appropriately advised him and filled in this gap that the court left also there were there was evidence in front of the court there were red flags here that should have informed the court that it needed to do more to ensure this was knowing and intelligent the court had authorized mr mayo to see a psychologist fourteen times and this was a seventeen year old instead the court rushed him through with this canvass and didn't fulfill its obligation to ensure on the record