good morning counsel your honor may it please the court katherine hart representing dwight champlin jr as the court knows this is a case of falling under the d p a so i have to shoulder the burden of proving that the state court decision denying my client has forever rights was reasonable and i submit to you that under twenty eight u s c twenty two fifty four d one and d two the state court was unreasonable in denying mr champlin his pro se rights mr champlin had been accorded pro per status by the fresno county superior court in february of two thousand and five in june he did attempt to engage counsel to assist him and as mr champlin explained in the hearing that took place on july eighth he anticipated with the counsel he was retaining a cooperative type of sharing agreement where the counsel but assistant but he w still have some type of pro se status on june twenty second mr greg morris attorney at law made an appearance in the fresno county superior court made an appearance and the minute order which had been supplied to the court the minute order showed that mr gregg morris was to file a substitution of counsel and that mr morse was to reach serve the motions that mr champlin had filed as a pro per that is correct and the the dissent infrared it does talk about the confusion of hybrid representation but sandra day o'connor in a later decision mccaskill versus wigan's four six five u one sixty eight justice o'connor does talk about the fact that a person may have advisory council that a pro per may have advisory council has a court may appoint advisory council and that was a case where the pro per defendant later complained that the advisory council had interfered with his right to proceed pro se but yes basically for it it is a right to represent oneself but this later case shows that there is a possibility of appointing counsel to a sister advisory council and you're your client at one point indicated he was having trouble and one of the reasons he thought he needed assistance was because he was having trouble understanding the rules and how they applied when to object and that sort of thing cleared well he said that is what i've just described essentially correct yes yes he had met in greg morris he had met somebody whom he thought he could work with because the other attorneys and there were a plethora of attorneys that had been representing him and it wasn't his fault that new attorneys kept being appointed but nothing had been filed so he took it upon himself to file his own penal code nine nine five motion to dismiss which was heard before june twenty second so i think what i'm trying to stress to you is that he had been perhaps disappointed at the fact that the attorneys who had been appointed one after one and finding conflicts and everything had not really done anything to represent him and yet like many pro per defendants he was uncertain about the rules of court he didn't want to public defender that was clear he didn't want to public defender and that's kind of a theme that runs through many of these cases and that he didn't want to public defender and certainly the forever right extend to the know the forever right does not stand for the fact that you can have somebody besides a public defender but the interesting thing i think  you know i don't see there's no supreme court authority saying there is absolutely no supreme court authority saying that when what mr for reddit did after he was denied his pro per privileges what mr forever did is that he made a request for co counsel which was denied and then he also made three attempts for substitute counsel that's not really widely reported in the forever decision because it's in a footnot be co counsel or because you made a request to substitute counsel that you have then forfeited that initial pro se request doesn't say the opposite either doesn't it doesn't say the opposite either but in this case when the fresno county superior court found mr tamplin to be equivocal they were relying on the fact that he never renewed his pro se request and the case law does not require that he requested on june thirtieth to go pro se and he requested it because it had been announced that greg morse was in eligible to practice law so yes he made that request on june thirtieth we don't have a transcript of that hearing but based on his request it can certainly be assumed that he was earnest and intended to make a request is the us always the other side but is the state arguing that he was unequivocal or that he was equivocal in his request on the thirtieth or on the eighth remark about how i want to represent myself and chill so the state then has basically focused on that one remark of champlin as saying what tampa must've meant is that he was wanted to represent himself until he found new counsel or he found counsel that he could work with mr temple and never finish the sentence so we really are speculating as to what he meant by that what what effect if any was there about his request to have the retainer returned him that had been given to mr morris does that suggest that he was thinking of getting other counsel i guess one could make an inference but one but the most logical explanation is that his money is gone he wants his money back and so there's really nothing equivocal about wanting your retainer back when i thought he had served will you help him he asked good trial court f will you help me get my money back so i can hire another lawyer yes that's exactly what he said isn't it and yes but the court said that the court didn't have authority to because what you want to  superior court had no authority to order the disbarred lawyer to return the favor right correct the lawyer wasn't just barred at that time but was facing disciplinary proceedings through the state bar and that person the attorney was not before the court so there would not have been jurisdiction to make that when was mr morris news board it was about a year later after all of the court proceedings so i think it was in two thousand and  six that he was just part and then he was also prosecuted criminally that really isn't in the record but i did attach the records of the california state bar showing the disciplinary proceedings and the records show that at the time that mr morris purported to step in to represent the white temple and that he was also facing disciplinary proceedings so i have an argument that mr morris never officially came in because he never filed a substitution and also that's an argument that the state made the fresno county district attorney's office made at the time that the case was before the court is they said that that mr morris never officially came and therefore mr  tamplin still had pro se status and the argument there at that point on the part of the state was he was equivocal because he didn't really knew his request for pro se privileges once they had been tonight so my argument is that mr did a search through the supreme court on clear and unequivocal to try to determine whether they've defined it and the worst case after case after case where the terms were used without additional explanation so i think that the terms are are obvious on their face clear meaning it's not muddy and unequivocal meaning that it is ambiguous and mr template requests to go pro se was ambiguous because he repeated it he insisted upon it and even after the court said no i'm not going to allow you pro per privileges because i don't i'm not going to give you a continuance here even then mr chaplin said i'm representing me and the court said no mr morris is representing you well mr morris wasn't representing him i think there may have been missed and was even given a public defender he was then given a public defender actually it was a public defender with the alternate public defender's office and the way it works there's a public alternate so he was given and turning with the public defender's office and that attorney declared a conflict and then with the alternate public defender's office he was given another attorney who remained the attorney for the trial the first attorney was mr hall correct no the first attorney i'm not sure of because there were two or three attorneys and then there was an attorney who who represented him at the preliminary hearing and then was this spate of time over five or six month period in which different attorneys were appointed to mr temple and attorneys found conflicts and so new attorneys got appointed no wonder he knew he was  the fact that motions how had not been made when there had been this repetitive cycle of conflicts in new attorneys so i'm clear as of the june july two thousand and five hearing yes call hadn't previously represented him in this matter she had represented him for a short period of time it would have been i think approximately december january december of two thousand and four january of two thousand and five five and then  that there were many hearings between july two thousand and five and the trial date at which the opportunity to review renew the request was not was there but god made what is your response to that that mr temple and did not have any obligation to renew the request for pro se privileges once he had made in phatic insistent on ambiguous and unequivocal requests for to establish forever rights that he did not have any obligation ever there to renew it and the case that i pointed out for that principle was united states versus our old it's in my points and authorities are ill chey and that is a case where this court said there was no obligation for a defendant to renew his request for self representation once his pro per privileges had been tonight so that's a case that i believe was powerful authority anything about mr for read a should have repeated his pro se request and surely that with mr forever having asked for a substitution of counsel mr forever himself would have known how to file something so in this case i'm relying on the i haven't discussed yet but it's discussed in detail in my opening brief the more vs calderon case which is an e d p case decided by this court where the issue or the individual requested procure privileges approximately two weeks and two days before trial and in that case mr moore also the first time he went to court requested that he have co counsel advisory coun so i think your honor that when there is a pro se defendant the pro se defendant often wants to go co counsel or to have the assistance of advisory council so that it doesn't really the fact that they may want that doesn't really know if either appropriate requests you know we would we've taken you will over time so let's hear from the other side as we will give you a chance to respond to thank you i don't think that this state court anywhere suggested that there's an obligation to complain once you over for any requests has been denied i think they simply cited that  you arguing that it was untimely it isn't timely but my major argument is that no supreme court cases ever held that you have a right to seek multiple self  there's he made a request which i think was probably untimely at the first time but they granted it then he decided he wanted counsel so you don't have a situation where a person started out a recently like mr once he realizes it's more there's more trouble than perhaps he anticipated and then it seems clear he said he would have kept with counsel the entire time but for the extremely let me ask it this way and i'm not asking you can do concede on the question of whether it's a critical let's assume for purposes of my question that on june the thirtieth and then at the hearing on the eighth he unequivocal he says i want to go pro per was that a timely request well there is no snow peak in the sense that there is no supreme court case that says acting just two weeks before scheduled trial date is time what do you what do you do with it or more a case where we interpreted forever as clearly stating that two weeks and two days was time way here it's two weeks and one day well actually more was prior court and more as we apply the had to standards to clear and then later in a case called burton versus davis we reiterate that that's what the holding was that's the thirtieth of june he says i want to go pro per and then there's and the trial is then scheduled for two days one week one two one two weeks and one day after that and you're saying that two weeks and one day is not timely i'm saying there's those supreme court case saying that that's timely and i'm saying that there is no supreme court case addressing all the existence of a right to go probe or once you have already done so and gone back over the course of time he did equivocate he started out wanting representation by counsel i don't get it he equivocate after june the thirtieth because he made it you made a request on the thirtieth and if that's a timely request then that's a valid forever quest unless it's equivocal well again your acting is so quick equivocal and certainly the supreme court cases ever said so that is something that you judge basically by the last statement when did he ask the court to assist him in recovering his fees from the disbarred lawyer we know on the date when they when it was actually the second request was  denied and but there is something in the record saying that there had been something the day before when he had asked in the court because on the day to having the hearing he says you still haven't ordered him to return my money so you know i'm not i'm asking money to be more precise when my understanding from the record is that at some point he said i'd like the court to help me in recovering the fees or words to that effect until dot dot dot you know when he when did that happen this happened during the hearing on the second request it was it was part of that the entire  court of the court it was like that at the same time and the same hearing or he who was asking for self representation yes we do know however he had he had said something the day before so yes the court asked why did you hire  the issue they're discussing and in other words he doesn't want counsel and he doesn't want to represent himself he wants counsel but he wants because we can hire what is the trial transcript tell us about whether  templar complained during the course of the trial about not being able to represent himself or the inadequacy of the counsel appointed to help him t represented on the first point we have a state court finding that he didn't complain further but i have not checked the transcript myself but i'm talking right now talking about something different than renewing the request ok i'm asking you have during the course of the trial did this individual at any point during the trial complained to the court about the and adequacy of the counsel he had i believe he did not but i have not maybe your co counsel your posing counsel can tell us ok thank you mr aldridge going back to the question of timeliness in light of the two weeks and one day between june thirty and the scheduled trial of july fifteen alternately the issue about whether to appoint your counsel came up on july eighth to correct the time and that's my question is is there any effect on the time line as evaluation of two weeks and one day when it's known that current counsel will not be able to represent the defendant and then therefore would it be practical to assume that new counsel coming in would be ready to go to represent a trial with one week to prepare it may or may not be practical it could it possibly isn't although one can never know but the fact is the supreme court's never passed on the question of all so it's really up to the state courts to sort of fill in the void and it can't be contrary to any case out there when there isn't one from the supreme court did it matter that the counsel who was originally appointed after july eighth had previously represented the defendant him i think that would only go in favor of saying he might be available at that point  place and then on my current question is does it matter that the new counsel who was first identified i believe it was ms hall who had previously represented the defend that such that she might be ready for trial  a week again i think might tends to go in favor of the discretion to deny but again my major point is that isn't even necessary because we simply don't have a spring court case saying anything in there in favor of a defendant's right on this question that point thank you you thank now we've taken you over time let's put a minute on the clock and see what happens for i think you yes your honor you raise a number of questions and i don't know whether i can i can answer one of the questions that you asked was whether during the actual trial that mr tamplin complained about been appointed to represent him after him after ms whole had come back into the case and then she declared a conflict i don't know how long she was on the case that day or something and then mr lindahl came in on that case i don't remember i have read portions of the trial transcript but i don't remember whether there was a complaint or not during trial i can't answer that i do know that there were voluminous complaints after th complaints when mr temple was represented on appeal by mr durham and the court asked for mr lindell to explain certain things but i don't know if during the trial there was a complaint about him as far as the timeliness you know new counsel couldn't have been ready to have tried this case it would not have been really possible there was a pitches motion that mr morris was supposed to research and that motion requires sixteen days notice before