is mr times the issues about mr thompson's unknowing waiver of his right to testify in the denial of his right to counsel at sentencing because i want to emphasize that those issues involve the need in specific that's of this case on the remaining issues the speedy trial that is not what we are asking if that isn't the issue the issue here is whether under the fatality of the circumstances in this particular case the record shows that mr thompson knowingly and understandingly waived his fundamental trial court explained to him how the trial would proceed that the parties would have the opportunity to present opening statements the state would call witnesses and mr townson cross examined the state's witnesses then he advised mr thompson about his right to testify  cross examination by the state's attorney like any other witness the court asked mr thompson at that point if he had questions and the order proceeding or anything and mr townson indicated that he did understand the order proceedings but he was silent about whether he understood the court's explanation about the right to testify or not testify and now the issue about his waiver of his right to testify along with after the state rested its case and the judge asked him if he had decided whether he was going to testify or not now it was at this critical point where mr thompson made that decision that he show confusion about exercising their right he said it wouldn't make sense for him to testify because the press here was only would be the isn't a heavy burden would have been a heavy burden on the trail or he just would have to explain the district ransome could get on the stand he would be under oath he would tell his story he didn't have to have someone questioning him and after he was done the prosecution would became abundantly clear that mr townson the head wanted to testify he repeatedly tried to present facts which had not been presented as evidence throughout the argument he complained that he was unable to tell his side of the story and one point he told the jury it's kind of hard to really defend yourself when you can't tell your story or anything at another point he said he couldn't tell his story like it happened and that in another when he said he was in a lot of the state anything he's got a story in he can't tell it knowing there's no law that says the judge does but in this case he did and in this case when he did and when mr thompson was faced with that crucial decision of whether to testify and that he expressed confusion about how to exercise that right even if an attorney was sitting right next to mr townson and he expressed confusion about his waiver of this fundamental constitutional right there's an obligation to ensure that if he knowingly wait and understandingly ways they're right so in this particular case we're guessing that the judge has is required to do so even in a case with a pro se to find it but in this particular case where you have a defendant who show confusion about exercising their right who then in closing argument clearly show that he intended to testify and wanted to testify in this particular case the judge had a duty to clarify his confusion on how to exercise their weight after the if there's no further questions then i would move on to the issue of his the denial consulate sentencing proceedings and if the defendant does later request counsel every reasonable presumption should be made in favor of a revocation of an earlier waiver due to the importance of the fundamental right to counsel in this case mr townson requests of counsel prior believed he needed to have his appeal in within the next thirty days and he also attached posting on this appeal to these motions at the hearing before the court the sentencing hearing the court asked mr thompson if it he was ready for the court told the court well i guess i've got to represent myself because you said i can't have an attorney and i'm foolish not to have a tour tourney so i have no choice but yes i am ready at this time and then the court denying the motions for a new trial and sentence counsel mr townson asprin attorney and appeal but it was clear from the documents that he filed that he believed that the appeal in the post trial proceedings were one and the same and when mr townson insisted that it was foolish for him to proceed without an attorney it was a period pre sentence investigation will report did not include accurate facts about his drug addiction or mental health records which showed that he had been institutionalized for mental illness and attorney could account the team this evidence and in a should it was included in considered by the court judge to towel and produce a defendant about his right to testify on and so if there if there is no duty to do that then how can there be a duty to inform appreciative kind of how he might exercise that right  defendants position isn't that the judge gave him in accurate advice but rather that defendant understood it inaccurately i believe that's the defendant's  represented by counsel it's counsel who has the duty to clear up any ambiguity on the issue of whether a waiver of testifying is is knowing and voluntary but here first the defendant was pro se and  that davis says that that this issue can also be reviewed for harmless there and that indeed this was found and it was deemed harmless where the defendant hadn't  provided an offer proof indicating what his testimony would be if he'd given it and also where on there were multiple eyewitnesses to the crime and in this case both of those circumstances exist moreover had  judge doesn't have her sponsibility to step in and be an advocate for the for the defendant in fact a maryland case cited by the defendant can be read as as warning a judge away from providing extra  convincingly says otherwise and and here i don't think there's any question that the defendant clearly convincingly stated that he wanted to and turn it on you know but it also is true that the defendant clearly stated his you to be hinges upon the disposition of issue to ag i also point out that that these statements need to be rad in the context that by my count at least nineteen times the judge stopped the defendant said i said further statements that are the the focus of defendant's argument here and i'd point out that two of those statements were given in response to defendants questions about his ruling in other words what happened was that the judge made argue that defendant can hardly quibble with statements that he himself asked the court to make and i also know that on that two of those that two of these three statements by the judge a different two were also on  company contemporaneously with jury instructions to the jury that they're not to consider the fact that the defendant did not testify these instructions in addition to of course the blanket jury instruction given with the other instructions and also notes that that these statements are only arithmetic in addition to being reviewed for playing or they're not there at all unless they are in with the remarks are deemed to have caused the verdicts and also that of any on you sympathy that the jury might have felt for the defendant who went pro se the prosecutor reminded the jury of the a there are question on for dear that they would not give any undue sympathy to the defend this for a living was intended to respond to the defendant's argument that he that the prosecutor was being obtuse malicious or on a personal vendetta or was proceeding in that the defendant during his during his closing argument made several eye admissions and comments which were but one could say foolish including that he'd stolen on drugs from the a conflict of interest and also for unnecessary continuance the trial court had not ruled on and pickles motion to withdraw when people in the same breath ask for a continuance so at that moment people still did represent the to the october seventh continuance that the defendant may have made when he said well defendant knows that he has a speedy trial right and continues to want that but i think he understands now this court were to read the october tenth and her thirtieth letters as somehow doing more than complaining about counsel's trial strategy on instead of as is required to  trial court to ensure that he had that information to make an intelligent decision on whether or not to waive their right to testify and in fact counsel sides davis in bed brings me to the point of the issue here is what's been did not do so because he wanted to testify and that is another distinction if you look at the davis case the court there even says that one of the reasons they found against the defendant is there was nothing in the record that showed the defendant ever wanted to testify and court telling the court well i'd like counsel but you won't give me counsel so yeah i guess i'm ready to get all if they appoint i don't know how much more he could have done to try to get counsel to be appointed so he was forced to proceed he had to yes he was ready to proceed at that point and that's this idea that he knew that the people as distinct from the post trial proceedings it's just not supported by the record if he filed his requests for the transcripts he filed his premature notice of appeal at the exact same time he filed motions to entitle the allegations in the post trial motions appeal an error he put in his motion i'm incompetent i can't represent myself and i don't know how much more he is required for him to say maybe it's not the most articulate way way of saying it but he virtually jumping up and down saying i can't represent myself and then asking for counsel and finally i