spare time as a gardener and when i get to a plant i start pruning it sometimes it doesn't look anything like the plant that started but the roots of the same the d n a is the same it's the same plant when i appointed as haiti is counsel and i get a pro per petition especially by a mentally ill client which are the clients that i get i need to do a major program and to be honest if i had known then what i know now about the relation back doctor and i think i would have played it a little bit more fully in going back again to my algebra teacher was always saying show your work show your work show how you got from here to here but when it comes down to brass tacks in this case it's essentially the same claim of involvement of the plate she said she was in the whole thing both counts involuntary because she was mentally ill and legally incompetent at the time and can i just sure that claim seems pretty legitimate but it's been abandoned i guess i just don't quite understand why you shifted from her petition to the claim that you're now trying to pursue honestly it was a strategic decision based on the difficulty of the facts of this case in front of a jury versus a second degree murder conviction because it started as his first degree murder with special circumstances and i thought long and hard i had long discussions with trial counsel i had long discussions with ms around and and that was just because dziedzic decision you your claim now is just limited to  trying to remember it's the attempted murder conviction right and i guess i'm just not even clear on what strategic value there would be if you were to prevail if she were to prevail on that claim because she just want to hurry up and go start serving the fifteen justice is at the time i wrote the petition i believed that she would she was in the process of being referred for restore of the sanity of his right to go to prison she's now been in prison for  that she was going to get no credit for the time that she was in napa however subsequently and i shared this with counsel this morning that was proven wrong and i do believe that the reason is because of the intervention of proposition fifty seven which has wide spread changes to the law of credits in the state of california including specifically says that credits will be awarded for time in nonexistent crime and it's a strike so it if miss graham ever does get to parole it has a huge potential impact if she ever  which honestly i don't think any kind of ever had i think she's less likely to re offend but but in my job i have said that before so i have to be real about it but at the at the time  and the other thing honestly as i read anderson in the last few days that was decided by believe a different panel of this court and rethought maybe i was incompetent for not prevailing with the regional she was incompetent and of the time play because i do believe she was i do tuesday that's why i don't understand why you because it's not even like you tried to add a claim and that would make sense right but to have aband claim that seemed on its face sheet was at the same time she was being allowed to enter this plea she was also sent off to no i just seems like right there there's something something's not right about that outcome don't you agree yes i mean especially given the circumstances of the crime i mean my goodness but if we at the same time as her counsel i am not just the appellate attorney and the attorney for her best interests over all and if if i believe that she stood a substantial risk of getting a worse outcome at trial then the second degree murder for the for the death of her daughter which is given sacramento county is not exactly known for being late and being bleeding heart liberals in my humble opinion and the facts of this case were really really really hard so even if you were had been successful in getting the plea vacated she so still would have faced the charges obviously could have been convicted so that was the fear and as i said that was not a quickly considered decision that was a long difficult struggle so i've taken up too much time on the collateral matter of what i want to address the issue that is before us because as i see it the factual basis for the original claim is completely distinct from the claim that you now want to pursue the point you will want to pursue has to do with the things that she did putting aside her her sanity or competency you know that they just don't add up to an offense at all right i'm sorry i couldn't hear states supreme court and albert gave wide discretion as long as his knowing involuntary you can plead guilty to a crime you didn't you didn't do they can make one up you know that's really clear but it has to be knowing involuntary it has to you have to know what you're doing and you have to make a conscious choice and facts where the claim is exactly the same she's saying i i didn't know i didn't know this was a legal fiction  attorney admitted it was a legal fiction saying that i didn't know that you know i wouldn't i wouldn't go along with the legal fiction i did you know so it's involuntary it's still it's still ill advised and the fact that she was mentally ill at the time adds to the unknowing or unintelligent nature of the play she said she said i just want to point out the specific references and that isn't in her original  petition which is that you know are one thirty four she said she was mentally incompetent it was involuntary plea that's exactly what we're saying here to it's involuntary if she's not intelligently advised and then she also said that are one forty three that she didn't understand the legal process and her rights were violated and this is with a specific place where i'm saying yes i think your rights were violated here good morning may it please the court tammy krenz and for the respondent to relate back we look at whether there's a common core operative facts before you get to that would you tell me do you agree with the s into what her credits are and what her time served would be or not so she made she mentioned that to me this morning and said that and and certainly that might go to an issue of potential if we got to all come in this case because you're so i find myself deeply troubled by how this unfolded actually no your honor in looking at this case i've been reviewed it for quite a long time and on the face of it if you look at it you see what happened here and when i've gone through particular excerpts of record and everything that was said and done and again were obviously on the merits of this right now i think her her attorney got a great deal for her and well you would have before entering a plea was she evaluated to see whether she was competent to stand trial at any point she was not evaluated whether she was competent to stand trial she was evaluated to determine if a not guilty by reason i mean san plea was appropriate so at the time of her crime there was evaluation as to what her mental state was then in looking at the please proceed ings she said she fully understood her right and there was there there was no record in raising the question counsel in raising question what i'm saying is that at the same time she was allowed to enter the plea supposedly fully knowing involuntary plea she was immediately sent off to nap wasn't and had spent the next three four five years trying to be restored to sanity i thought so how could the plea that time one of been knowing of alter that's what troubles me right well i think you have to look at the two different time periods a plea of not guilty by reason and sandy has to do with what happened at the time of the crime right her competence to stand trial is a separate time period and actually if you look in what you're saying that she was never a valuated before she entered the plea between the time of the offense and time she entered the plea i thought you said that she was never valuer to see whether she was a cop and not that to my knowledge there's nothing on the record that says she was evaluated and if counsel wasn't concerned or the court wasn't concerned and i think it's important to note that she actually at the time of the plea proceedings said on the record she was taking respect all she was being medicated she was in jail she was receiving treatment but so i'm with you that the time periods are different but all i'm saying is that from the because i don't think anyone could question because there's a mental health issue was in her right mind for years after she entered the plea that that's i'm just saying that there are strange there's a difference i think there's a big difference between having mental health issues and whether you are actually competent to stand trial that's a much different standard that's why i was asking you if you ever evaluated you said so we don't know and everything we do know about the time from the time she entered the plea forward for several years to just that there were probably major issues she was suffering from at the times you know the but under federal constitutional law which again we're discussing an issue that's we're not at war the procedural stage but under federal constitutional law so unless counsel or the court has a reason to believe and if she's medicated being treated and she is able to understand the proceedings and able to her sister counsel which based on the change of plea proceedings appear she was able to do that there's no reason to question her competency there's no reason to quit what she did at the time of the crime she may not have been medicated at that time she may not have been getting treatment she is now in jail receiving treatment and she's appearing in it seventy three eighty four she's asked questions she's asked if she understands her rights to understand what she's given she continues to say yes i do yes i do her attorney says she refused to go to trial she didn't want to go to trial she wanted to do you want to die she wanted to go to prison she didn't say she wanted i don't know if she want to die or not she said you want to go to prison not she wanted to and she was so distraught over what she'd done she wanted things and that doesn't even if that's true that doesn't equate to mental incompetency oh i know that's why i'm shocked though that no evaluation was done in light of what happened in terms of the circumstance of the crime and what they were contemplating doing in terms of selling her to nap it just seems crazy that she wasn't  hearing voices and hallucinations and again i'm assuming all these things are true we haven't gotten to that stage but assuming all that's true if she's receiving treatment and drugs that was working for her she could very well be competent at the time of trial but continue to need treatment and i think her attorney was was doing his best to make sure she was getting the treatment she needed which now has put her in a much better place for parole has given her a chance she had a charge of life the possibility of parole hanging over on some facts that were very concerning and some some indicate evidence that she understood understood what was going on i don't think there's any dispute could be didn't you dispute she had mental health just thought you said would you have done that if you were the prosecutor so and so just quickly on the relation back issue the facts as alleged in the original timely petition relating to her depression delusions wanting to insufficient factual basis for her attempted murder charge the about what about the argument of counsel made that what she's trying to argue in this new claim is connected to the old claim because she's saying the plea wasn't knowing and voluntary because she wasn't properly advised about the fact that actually what you did with respect to the son can't couldn't it could not ever be deemed a crime but again we're looking at the facts not legal theories we don't relate legal theories timon type requirement refers to facts and the facts of whether she was competent to stand trial whether she was depressed delusional suicidal whether she received a competency evaluation is entirely different then being then whether she was advised that the facts are that her acts actually constituted the crime of attempted murder there's a completely separate in time and type those facts are completely different and what's telling is that those facts are not in the original petition are not in the amended petition to even support the claim they're nowhere they're nowhere to be found and it's because they can't support the claim so it's max if true would not establish the claim of the original petition and case an abundance of caution in case the court were inclined to look beyond the original police pleading to try to pull facts and what she meant and things and things of that nature and i think that case makes clear we look you have to allege all the facts all your legal support in your petition and you don't go looking elsewhere to try to get her intent or to poll other facts so so in your view if we do that in this case right what does that mean that means it's a new claim or it's not the same going i'm sorry you're saying what does it mean if we do if we do that if we follow the liberally construe the petition to go beyond the four corners of the document that simply can't do that according to sources william as well as role rule to see and male versus felix says the same thing and unless there's any further questions  briefly the court is absolutely right that she didn't get evaluated under thirteen sixty eight and the reason is honestly because defense counsel did not realize how sick she was there's a declaration  one one eight one nine from one of her treating psychologist at napa about how because she of her cultural background as a hindu woman in more of a third world country and married in an abusive relationship where she was incredibly passive and that's what she was trying to do yes yes or no notion or you know it was that's what she did she gave the expected answer and the trial counsel did not know how suicidal she was that gene he knew she wanted to die but he didn't know how bad it was i would also suggest that you and she wasn't that the point i wanted to make is she was in napa for seven years not three four or five and if you can look at dr skills declaration another treating psychiatry just from napa one twenty he changed her nads to add a second and i psychotic and that's what started to turn things around but that wasn't until about year six and it's exactly in history gratian and last but not  my last ten seconds i would like to say it's so fundamentally unfair to expect ms round to understand what a legally insufficient claim you know crime is when she couldn't know that she couldn't be guilty of a second degree murder or attempted murder of her son simply because she thought or she thought she was guilty because she thought she wanted to do that at the time because their voices told her and she felt guilty even if the law didn't so that's why she pled guilty but that's not knowing involuntary plea and it doesn't mean through due process thank you counsel thank you both counsel the case just