determination if they're reviewing your record we don't know trial counsel the trial court does that's a factor that twelve poor kid can take into consideration you know also the court could look at the record look at the waiver that took place look at all the i do with so why would we jump the gun and say no point knowable when the trial court is he did go through those initial steps when you are imagining part of the question that the trial for is nothing in her case about even remanding for a hearing in front of a different judge and there was really no discussion of any of the supreme court cases that was before patrick and before challenge so for whatever reason it seems like that case really stands on its own and i mean that somehow they did appears that there is no discussion regarding any of the relevant supreme court decisions that would be applicable to this situation maybe they overlooked it it's a little bit unclear because there isn't any detailed discussion about why that record here is very substantial in supports the remedy i'm requesting here because the trial judge said that this and you both agreed on the issue that it should be another judge but how is another judge going to proceed on this case willing i will request that the other judge go ahead you know point how so but let first district appellate court i would recommend following the case of jackson which is also a two thousand and sixteen case in there the state conceded that there was an improper prank called the court judge followed the proper crinkle procedure or he wouldn't discuss the defense issues with him which he did in part and then instead of having the defense counsel called by the is to question defense counsel and ascertain the facts and circumstances surrounding the defendant's claims and third the judge can rely on his own knowledge of the case this if it goes in other proceedings have referred to trial transcripts if they desire to do so certainly in this case the best avenue is going to be the discussion with the and and the discussion with defen maybe if if and there's nothing that says you can't do all three if the judge really wanted to be prepared so i guess my my question is why since we have done that we've done exactly you know we've read the record that's been presented of the trial we have heard the arguments we've heard the insurers that counsel gave notwithstanding the fact that they were improperly why should we then go through that process or have a trial court go through that process is it just to learn the process or is it to actually do something that we can't do the  to create an object of record so i would say that in this case because of the way that the proceedings winds and the judge essentially having a hearing with some adversarial but the judge handled it enough information i think in this case to validly reject the defense kinds so if your hono and i cannot remember the case that it's cited somewhere in the briefs because i remember looking at it but they had said you know when the word actually came to a conclusion on the issue then it was a manifestly erroneous standard i'm sorry i can't remember which case that was but the reason that i came fast in here is because all of the case law including the only supreme court says the think if you're looking at the fact that the border is required to remain and forty cruelly if frankly the findings in this case are rooted out you know if if you required to and the case is if the different if the trial judge by the defendant's pro se claims to be with me at that point he appoints counsel ok and then what and then the counsel who file whatever motions  the defendant will have medium appointed counsel in filing his motions at that point his motions to do what i think that would include the jury believe or issue you know anything else or do does the trial court down the road if the circumstances here it then go back to and i guess i'm a little run hatred that procedurally what my recollection of and i cannot remember off the top of my head which case it is is that it's in one of the cases  or again so i think there is a grounds on the conservation judicial resources to just simply appoint a console and just have a theory period at that point rather than have them all tightly