about a man who is presently serving a thirty six year sentence in the arizona department of corrections who was very likely incompetent not competent to enter into a no contest plea back in issue of confidence into the trial course attention's not at the initial stages before any post conviction relief proceedings had been initiated during the course of representation at the trial level trial counsel actually looked into the medical records in evaluations of mr warren because mr warren had a decades long history of post traumatic stress disorder he had been and has been found gravely disabled by the veterans administration in fact one hundred percent disabled interestingly ninety percent of that was attributed to his post traumatic stress disorder and ten percent of that to a physical injury to his back although all of the initial doctors reports regarding his back injury were that it was psychosomatic they could not actually find physical injury so i think it could be a fair conclusion that one hundred percent of his disability is due to his post traumatic stress disorder which comes out in the form of auditory  sanity and one of them a lack of sanity to commit the crime or the lack of ability to actually appreciate the difference between right and wrong at the time right and i think it's a little different from hundred ninety three and issued a report in mid august of one nine hundred ninety three so in other words over about a three week period he met with him three times and then about a month later issued a report and in that report found him to be co the fence was too difficult and persuaded mr ward to enter into a change of police now afterwards we've learned the council's decision was based on he thought that he could convince the trial judge to  aware that there were competency issues and number two most of my discussions were with the wife marty as opposed to the actual client so in other words he's dealing mainly with the client me i was using the client's wife because  client's having such a hard time dealing with planes in jail and wife's not and between the change of plea and the sentencing the client was in jail however the client was not in jail up to the change of police he was so in other words he had full ability physically to deal with the client but unfortunately the client could not deal with his attorney just based upon the problems he was having a mental health area and so what happened was the the trial counsel goes forward with the change of play and never raises  now trial counsel files the first petition for post conviction relief and does not raise ineffective assistance of counsel claims what he does do is point out to the court it's quite possible that mr warren wasn't competent i didn't experts as to what this is he doesn't take these actions because he doesn't make the claim the court goes ahead and makes his finding on competency ex post facto after the fact make the finding then when new counsel is brought in when new counsel this ineffective assistance of counsel about the whole competency area well i've already handled those of already found him to be competent retroactively and again they were because of the issue of the same counsel doing it it was not fully explored it was not adequately present demonstrate prejudice in other words we've already got it since your court said no this is a clearly identifiable way or the conflict what it goes through is clearly identifiable and it didn't affect the outcome because it was raised at the second p c r proceeding so where equitable talking was granted and under the basis of petitioners mental incapacity when the record clearly shows that petitioner was represented by retained counsel who simply failed to take into account believe that he's incompetent because he was not a medication those two factors cannot be cannot be reconciled and again this begs the question i time well i guess the first question by the claim of lack of due process because the state court did not order a competency hearing and i think what you just argued was there was nothing brought to the court's attention or it was appearing before the court that would have required the court to order such a hearing so there was no due process violation w attorney his wife obviously was very involved but there's no there's no evidence in the record that the council primarily dealt with the wife and if that's the case it's also the case of those people because that's exactly what what what what obviously very familiar with the defendants met mental state defense counsel was really trying to broker a deal that would permit the defendant to be committed to a mental institution as opposed to a prison term so that was the jurors that that was the reason left for the petition at this time if this court has no further questions my argument is completely information nine specific points regarding ongoing severe mental health problem let's go on to what was before the defense lawyer michael sarver first hearing at the first hearing on michael scott what was before him at that point was for reports from experts dr aamer doctor harrison and i believe doctor might have those reports say those reports detail the effects of post the council actually acquires all of these voluminous records from the v a and from different treating psychiatry so in other words at the beginning of the case when he determined that looks like there's really an issue here my client and i aren't discussing things well he appears to have serious mental problems he notices the defenses that triggers a mechanism by which for experts actually interview him one of which goes forward with cop and see evaluation although we don't know under what strictures because he wasn't ordered to do so it wasn't through the normal rule the proceedings you're saying and at that time that's when the defense counsel then ordered all of his her go that was the other information about prior post traumatic stress disorder presumably he had ordered it as the process was going so i don't know when causes incompetence or what we do have is dr pos for example has specifically looked over situation the former head of the correctional health services and said it is his opinion that he is very he was very likely incompetent based on his review  what all the doctors had and what we do know is we have post traumatic stress disorder experts who have given information to the state court at the post conviction relief proceedings saying that in this case with mr warren that the directly affected his ability to come to grips with daily life in reality what we've asked for at the state court proceeding and the district court proceeding was a hearing so we can actually bring this information and it can be tested out of the fair light of the court but  we've yet to receive a hearing on these issues to summary denials that the state court level followed by a summary well in the district court went through the paperwork but we didn't he would not grant evidence you're here the judge did not and so what we've asked is that information that the defense hugely the appellate has is that all the information points to he was very likely not competent went into the no contest pl