place court doing turner was sentenced to prison for life without parole for a crime he committed when he was nineteen after the jury deadlocked over whether to recommend a life sentence to the judge turner's essential claim is that had his counsel investigated and presented expert mitigating psychological tests all when did the murder conviction become final in state court originally in one thousand nine hundred seven you say that's why i'm asking about the murder conviction yes let me let me tell you what my problem is with your presentation he looks like your clients got two maybe three convictions in state court one of them for murder and one of them for robbery let's just focus on murder and robbery here's what it looks like to me and you can tell me if i'm wrong because you know i gather the facts maybe don't gather them correctly it looks like the murder conviction was entered two decades ago and has never been amended or altered changed nothing the robbery conviction looks like it's sentence what's changed but what i gather is going on here is that you're seeking relief from the murder conviction and so my question is why would the fact that a rocket challenge to the robbery conviction might be time only mean the challenge to the murder convictions time was the defendant re sentenced on the murder conviction he was he was not but if the west had problems but ed does speaks of one judgement but a state a state can enter as many judgements as it  and the federal time runs independently from each judgement if the state covers five convictions in one judgment farm be got one federal but if the state enters more than one judgement we've got more than one federal time now one can can you tell me maybe this is the critical question and you tell me exactly what happened when the robbery conviction when the robbery sentence was changed or did the state then enter a new judgment on the murder convicted not prison he is then a year later tried and convicted of robbery and at the sentencing for robbery the judge refers to the murder conviction and says i'm taking that into account in choosing your sentence for robbery he then impose counsel at his original sentencing hearing here's the problem i have because what you're trying to propose to me it undermines the concept of the finality of the state court's decision because if we can review the entire conviction when the petitioner was only granite relief on a specific issue that seems to me that's problematic and that's what you really want us to do and i understand you're saying there is this reference but i don't think that's enough of a hook well to remember what it trying to protect is the state's interest in its final judgment so if a gift if a state decides that a defendant needs to be three sentence it is the state itself that has disturbed the finale of its own judgment so in that respect or rule the rule of herrera the eleven some circuit rule is completely consistent with the underlying purpose of that of the only thing i would say this just to me is i have the same problem judge easterbro can convict somebody of his many crimes as he wants to and enter as many judgments as he wants there is one federal time judgment but if the state under his multiple judgments there's a separate federal time from each one again i don't want to mislead you it does not give reenter judgment on the murder conviction ok so but our purpose our position is that you should follow ferreyra because we do think that it's consistent with the temporary doesn't after the outcome of the supreme court in meg would against paterson if mad what against paterson holds that when the state enters a new judgment that resets the number kept for purposes of collateral review i don't see why it doesn't equally reset the time count there's nothing in the statute that makes the number count in the time count go separately so and we know this is the supreme court in twenty ten so why should we care what the eleventh the murder judgment ok well i wish i could say that it did in perhaps you'll read the order differently than i have but i don't believe that it did but nonetheless the eleventh circuit did involve two different judgments that le two different judgments one recent saying the court very specifically said that brings up for review review under the supreme court's decision in burton versus stewart all of the claims that one could have raised with respect to the original according to what judge word is turner in custody for life for his murder conviction and it looks like the judgment according to which he is in custody is the one entered in the one nine hundred ninety seven well let me let me try to commit this a different way i think what you're you're you're really doing is looking at the application and trying to ascertain the statute of limitations on a claim by claim basis and i think that that's inappropriate the supreme court said in a case called pace versus de giuliano footnote six that there are four means by which the statue of limitations is counted three of them are indeed calculated on a claim claim basis twenty two forty forty one to be dealing with the removal of governmental impediments t one c dealing with new rights made rope retroactive in the one d dealing with new factual predicates but under section twenty two forty forty one a the part of the statute that runs from when the judgment became final the part of the statute at issue here the court very specifically says that the statute should be calculated based on the application as a whole and because mr turner final his application within one year of his reception saying his application all of the claims within that application are of necessity merits at this stage all we have to show is that mr turner has a decent chance of success and merits we've made that showing this was a close case the jury deadlocked over whether to recommend a sentence of life in prison without parole and there's a reasonable probability that had turner's counsel provided effective assistance of counsel that said a lot could have been broken in his favor according to a b a standards then in effect counsel had a few days to investigate  reasonably available mitigating evidence and a higher where appropriate and expert to present mitigating acts evidence turns council didn't do that he didn't even consult an expert because he didn't know that if he didn't like the expert's opinion and didn't want to use it at trial he didn't have to disclose it to the state that finally fell below objective lee reasonable standards of performance for trial counsel equally important counsel performance was deficient la witnesses testified about turner's terrible upbringing but an expert could have explained what effect that terrible upbringing had on mr turner and in particular his reasoning and a judgment judgment abilities dr  turner's post conviction psychological expert testified that turner was quote psychologically damaged in a number of ways that are fundamental and that impact his functioning in virtually every aspect of his life that's that supplemental appendix one fifty furthermore a cycle the psychologist could have rebutted the state's jailhouse psychologist testimony that turner was a psychopath inability to narcissist conditions that aren't even recognized in the d s sentence which brought finality to the case in which he could then proceed with direct review which he day and this was in court in accordance with firm in the united states which burton refers to in determining that a judgment and i take it that head he sought to challenge the robbery conviction where he was recently a source of a year before he filed his federal petition you wouldn't have any quarrel with timeliness i think that would be  question your honor yes psychological examination of turner before the penalty phase began in prison and that that testimony trial counsel made a very reasonable strategic decision he did investigate turner's background and in fact he found four to five lay witnesses family members a man that turner had worked for and he had experience and other murder cases with other psychological evidence and he also based his decision based on his interactions with turner himself and determined that the better course was to provide those character evidence of mr turner through these lay witnesses and onslow give a description of the hardships that turner face during his childhood that he does not render because the fact that he did not know at the time that he did not have to divulge a psychological test should he have gotten one if it didn't look favorable to  information to not challenge the state's evidence but rather come from arm that the only appropriate sentence in this case was life without parole dr ferraro was very clear blame and responsibility he resent social standards he has glasses and reasoning reasoning and judgment he gauges an inappropriate behavior and it's highly resistant to change trial counsel's instinct was a correct one that if he if he had psychological testing it was sure to give information and evidence that would not have been favorable to turner which gives both trial council's decision on his performance  was not deficient and that his presentation of the penalty phase information without dr for are as testimony was was not prejudicial to the defendant if there the court reopened what was fine and made it final no longer entering a new judgment on the merits it is our only our burden to stablish that this case is worth reminding and we've done that it was simply not reasonable for trial counsel not to even talk to a psychologist in this case and that was prejudicial and could have tipped the balance in this case where the jury deadlocked turner was not effectively