did not believe that adequate representation of what's possible the trial judge asked no questions about any of the problems between the two are the trial judge asked no questions about the extent of the trial preparation that a trial counsel had conducted on behalf of mr make it the trial just being a few days away whether any witnesses had been subpoenaed on this to make it was not given an opportunity to air his grievances he was a e in one brief interlude to tell the trial court that he had given a list of witnesses to his truck counsel and very few of them had been contacted or or interviewed so there was absolutely no factual development t and i'm going to have to check to see if you use the word conflict he didn't you know use the term of our conflict but in essence he stated that he had to know that mr make it had concerned about the representation and it escalated unable to seventeenth which was eleven days i'm sure seven days before trial and here's the point i think that that fits into into the complications at this point the communication between  deteriorated to the coins were further add adequate representation is no longer possible he did not use the the buzz word breakdown of communication but certainly he informed the trial judge of  of a problem starts that it should have triggered the constitutional duty of the trial judge to make an inquiry about the nature of the conflict and and the nature of the breakdown in the communication during the hearing itself  and i used that that term hearing you know with quotation marks because it wasn't much of a hearing was most mainly the trial judge telling mr neat kid that he was not going to get a new attorney that the trial was not going to be  continued told him about he was between a rock and a hard place told mr make it the case against you looks pretty strong i take in pleas from co defendants i've examined the physical evidence in this case i've read the police reports and you're not going to like the testimony if the trial judge made no inquiry about even really did the prejudice issue in other words that the prosecutor did not object at any time during the hearing toward the end of my brief the district court didn't reach the issue of procedural the fault and in fact simply ruled on the merits of the case declined to reach the exhaustion issue i think that's an important issue in light of the u s supreme court's decision precedent under twenty two fifty four g in morris the petitioner in this was a twenty two fifty four case the petitioner had become disgruntled with his trial attorney during trial and he wanted the continuance of the trial she is basis for that was my attorney's not prepared to go forward that's exactly the case here the court the trial affidavit excuse me according to counsel's affidavit petitioner had been just a grandchild with his representation from day one five months before the titian or never said anything to the court waited until the thursday before the monday to say well wait a minute i don't like this guy he's not prepared to go forward and even though the court didn't say the petitioner what's the basis of the conflict i agree with the court this isn't a conflict case per se there was a tra looking i would say that what he doesn't do is describe the facts of morris and describe the kind of case morris was and what the holding in morris ultimately w shell in the can and the other supreme court conflict of interest cases that the judge has to make an inquiry and that i'm getting back now to the problem in this case before a judge can say timeliness is a problem or we don't want to continue as the judge still ha the remaining seconds i have we believe there is no procedural default in this case if you look at page one twelve and one thirteen of the excerpt record it's the ruling of the post conviction trial judge who decided the issue of whether the trial judge erred in not allowing the trial counsel mr hatch to withdraw and he also decided the constitutional question the federal constitutional question of whether there was an adequate inquiry so no matter and i'm not conceding that mr meek if didn't raise the issue appropriately in the post election truck or but whether he did or not the trial judge the post conviction projects did decide it and there's no comedy