petitioner made a claim that he had ineffective assistance of counsel regarding statute of limitations issues but he completely misunderstood the actual statute of limits claim that it was  generally that he was imprisoned in violation of his fifth amendment right to counsel you then had more specific claims that did not set out the arguments that he is making at the federal level however he did the claim that the trial court had him properly imprisoned him for eight hundred months for the murder count in his trial memoranda which was submitted by trial counsel and for some reason trial counsel chose not to go raise a claim in the original or amended petition or it's waived if there is not some exception to the rule in the cases that really set out the standard for that petition or for that statu issue he was concerned with that wasn't being addressed so contrary to a very strict reading i do think that the general proviso that the oregon rules of civil procedure apply to the post conviction context and that there is a general provision that if an issue is litigated in a civil context it can be treated the petition can be treated as if it was amended old come into play so that cases such as abbott where the there was a very broad petition and you know argument and discussion exchange at the trial court level and then the trial court made a ruling reading of the case is that there was a natural hearing in which the trial there was an exchange of the parties in the trial court ruled on this argument may have even been the one to you know raise an additional interpretation of the statute of limitations tried which is simply submission of trial memoranda this issue was raised by trial counsel as i mentioned in trial memoranda that was submitted there certainly was not although it's not surprising any motion or reply memoranda submitted by the go to the respondent saying listen this trial memoranda doesn't address the findings that were in the petition when the trial judge issued his let opinion he does make a reference to juvenile claims the petitioner claims that he was sentenced improperly as a juvenile i reject those claims when it gets translated which does not address the issue that was raised in the petitioners trial miranda's that we have another confusion but if if we're looking at the trial court to have an opportunity to rule on this issue there i the trial judge did not reject consideration of the issue because of some sort of procedural gaffe but simply that he rejected the argument and then it proceeded through the court did allege that very clean in addition the problem was is that when he made his argument to the post conviction in court he had put this sort of one legal argument in support of that claim and then the article sixteen of the constitute fragment so he doesn't make it there then he goes under rec appeal to the organ court of appeals and that's where he raises the tries to raise the eighth amendment cloning and the article one section sixty and there is ok so now you're but the bottom line is that when you look at the excerpt of record on page ten it's a very specific detail series of claims challenging all sorts of things about the sentence but it's about the other sentence and it's on other the ninth circuit if there is any suggestion in ninth circuit case law that pro se petitions should not be read in the context of them being proceeded petitions they didn't intend to do that lyons is the  because he had so many problems previously it is left to him to identify the proper issues and he at least gets fairly close and his counsel comes in and relies on that and files the same trial memoranda without addressing it with of which held that this sentence was illegal for the reasons that we did outline in our brief all were in place and in fact cited by the trial attorney in his trial memoranda and he in fact made all of the intellectual points that he needed to make to put those cases together for their significance in other words he said your honor you can't impose a true life sentence for this aggravated murder conviction that the courts upheld is unconstitutional for a greater offense he was aware of that inside there in a different context in his trial memoranda but he never put together this concept you're giving him a lesser sentence for the aggravated murder than you are for the murder