understand if you don't show the trial or without you that's an important instruction because a waiver of federal constitutional rights it has to be not only voluntary but knowing i think that's not eris may counsel i hear what about the case order to be valid and perhaps i read into that section in the record that he had been informed even if state law however were to allow a waiver of these rights based on simply a written record federal law would not allow that  we don't know the defendant understood those rights because the judge never said anything to him like the right to compel witnesses but that he's also given an option do you want if you don't hear a trial or you want to judge trial what you want your lawyer to choose whether you have a jury trial or a judge and mr valid and chose a jury trial he didn't give his lawyer the authority to do anything else he chose the true trial what occurred in his case was not a jury trial and the way we understand it from florida i like to just find the quote from for your honor favorable witnesses the cross examination of adverse witnesses and the orderly introduction of evidence mr beltran did not receive a trial in the way that our system understands it so that even if the court were to find that this piece of paper constitutes a knowing waiver court noted in this case even if the issue had been preserved even if have been raised it would not have been successful and the reason for that is that you know potential trials of this type are allowed both under oregon law and knowing all and terry and intelligent waiver of the right to be present at trial and that is all that goes oregon and federal law requires the federal cases the federal case really yes case and this course decision in the ruhr indicate that this type of waiver is valid so even if the issue has been preserved as a matter of state law even if it could have been raised on the hill it would not  understand what happened in fact that his sentencing the trial court asked why he didn't appear and petitioner explained that she was concerned that he was being railroaded by his trial counsel that he could see the trial didn't preach approaching and that he left because of that so there is nothing in the record to suggest in the slightest matter the petitioner does not understand the meaning of this particular waiver so does the issue and it cannot be waived and so in this case the issue was not preserved for the reasons in our grief but a but i believe really the the argument that really disposes of this claim is the fact that alleged that the crime occurred when there was a shower those are areas of trial counsel that are procedural and we recognize that in our brief and i quote for the evidence we have of actual innocence course it would be better if we could have gone to mexico and of country to get a for that argument the one other issue about the knowing and voluntary waiver the state argues that again the written waiver it's efficient and your honor there are very few instances where defendant is permitted to waive extraordinary constitutional rights just based on if his favor even though it's signed in the courtroom the obligation of the judge is to ensure that the waiver is knowing involuntary and i want to make sure it's clear confusion about the fact that he could not go back he said i don't get another trial that end of it there's no more matter and he didn't understand that this was that he had lost his rights so the