a report in recommendations i would consider one of the most well reasoned and thoughtful reports opinions that i've seen since i've been doing this work the magistrate recommended that the great writ be granted only ground frankly intellectually dishonest rejects the magistrates recommendation and i want to start off and and just talk about what happened at the at the trial court level the mr daniels well speaking of intellectual honesty this morris against laffey cases i reread it now i see that the holding was actually that there was no constitutional violation in th case there's some dicta right that talks about how it would be a violation to deny a continuance for arbitrary or on reason bases but how does that apply then under eb if the holding of the case was actually no no violation well i'm reasonably apply dicta i think what  unreasonable insistence on expeditious in this in the face of a justifiable request for delay that's beyond reasonable and arbitrary right that's what the language for more it has been and did they are unreasonable and arbitrary that's what language is for mor s my concern is that's not holding the morsy and b s i read morris again slappy held there was no violation so i'm wondering what the holding of the supreme court you say was unreasonably applied i guess your answer is whatever remorse you can slap he said you think it's the the clearly established law that's that's correct right i don't know that the actual decision going one way or  another for the petition or the respondent in that case makes a difference we're talking about what the law is usually dance with the holding is how the case comes out but you know the holding of the under case i don't this is an honest question this most of the cases that the district judge or a lot upon especially the cases that he sighed and i think under may have been one of those cases trying to say that mr daniels wasn't diligent involve defendants  charges against him position of meth with intent to marijuana with intent first reach out and dangerman attempted first degree battery on a police officer serious charges and local defendants daniels facing a potential life judge right off the bat announces he's going to fast track this case in my opinion for no good reason fastrack this case we're going to set it we're going to set this case for the fourth day for trial and i'm not going grain any continuances we said jones is incarceration off the bat right he said that that was his that was his first reason that he gave was daniels and jones were in pretrial custody and then it was pointed out to him that  daniel's not going to get no anyways got a parole hold on so but that that didn't matter to the trial that's where it starts in and tries to sort of force the guilty plea he says if i were to information that he was in a similar situation having another hold on him he did not have a hold on him but he had a bond that he supposedly couldn't make so he he was going to be he was in pretrial dishonest but i haven't heard what you say is the wrong with first first evolved the the district court really ignored or discounted or misinterpreted or most of the facts here vardy got a great lawyer public defender paid by the straight why would you want to go and get and hire a lawyer telling him that he can't afford he can't even afford to hire a lawyer in the first place thousand dollars not don't cut it even though had already paid a thousand dollars to mr west who decided to bail out on him judge holmes also talked about these charges like it's almost like as a shoplifting case or something and these are serious serious charges in that case was a lot more complex than the district court would would would have us believe multiple serious felony charges facing a potential life sentence multiple defendants possible pretrial motions that could be filed motion to suppress the evidence motion to suppress mr dangles statement mr daniels charges offender also mr daniels housed at the brickies unit which was several hours away or close to memphis a long long way from the court which would make it difficult for a lawyer to even really communicate with him so that's a real problem judge holmes talking about how any any lawyer would build to take this case and be ready for trial in one month that's not what he said he said that bradshaw herself got ready in one month and th west was willing to do it but for the conflict with the police officer with one month to go well he said that tends to show that one month was enough time  prepare the case they just decided to bail out on daniel's on nov fifteenth you mean you think he'd been working on the case for a month before the november fifteen hearing i don't think he had been working on the case i think well i think they're right i think daniel's had a right to think that he was working on the case can we not my point is that was judge holmes is reasoning that he hadn't been working on the case he was one month left and the only reason he didn't take the case was the situation with the police officer but i don't know that they got involved in speculation or cannot be honest with you ok now don't worry if you don't have it he said that the the chronology quote the chronology recited by the arkansas court of appeals a substantial substantially accurate quote unquote and that quote although daniels argues that th was based on an unreasonable determination the facts he does not specify any portion of the determination of the facts that was an accurate quote that's because arkansas who feels ignored all of the facts that are relevant to the analysis  almost and ignored all these other facts that strongly support the six other things wrong with judge holmes decision now that back to the arkansas court of appeals they could they say they're got a chronology i'm looking at this is page five of their slip opinion they say they have a chronology and it's short i get it two paragraphs but ma three paragraphs but it's not too bad little short sentences with facts  well but what they what they ignored is that all of the dialogue between what happened at the october twelfth hearing right off the bat repeatedly trying to persuade daniels not to his right to counsel of choice talking about call the defender being an excellent lawyer hello mr daniels you're not going be able to afford a lawyer  or innocence refusing to continue the case after mr daniels got blindsided on november fifteenth when mr west bailed out on him and they only had a month office and i represent windy kelly and first i want to start off by saying that an appellant never identified a council of choice that he wished to retain therefore there can be mr west never agreed and he wasn't willing to take the case and under choice of counsel you do not have a right to an attorney who is not willing to represent you or who you cannot afford or the supreme court case holding that a deprivation of this right can occur without first identifying counsel and appellant have four months to find counsel and he never did he never told the trial court hey this is who i want to represent me this is who is willing to represent me and the trial court never deprived him of that in each case in the supreme court in which talked about the choice of counsel right in each of those cases the defendant had a dinner fide the counsel who he wished to be retained and gonzales lopez he to be represented by an out of state attorney and we the defendant wanted to be represented by the attorney who other counsel and again here appellant never did that and without first identifying a counsel the trial court cannot deprive him of his right and so a right to counsel of choice once you have found counsel who is willing and able to represent you and under the state court's decision cannot be unbridgeable application of clearly establish law if there is not clearly established law all giving a defendant the right to go see counsel when he already has an appointed counsel and again in this case there is no deprivation but even assuming that the sixth amendment right of counsel of choice is or can be expanded it can't under ed but if we were to expand it to include the right to go shop for counsel then the and court of appeals decision was still not unreasonable under three the prejudice part of it's bad right deference under at pearl and it was not so objective lee and reasonable that no fair minded jurist could disagree and the trial court balance right of the defendant's choice of counsel with other legitimate considerations in front of him such as the fact that the codefendant jones was in jail and could not make bail and that was the most the single most important reason the trial court continuously stated at both the twelth hearing in the november fifteenth hearing the trial court felt it would be that's not that indeed the december reasons right given by the judge no your honor by the the day of trial and on december sixteenth the codefendant had not officially pled yet but he was in the process the police negotiator and even as late as december ten right there's no mention on december ten about jones there's no mention one way or the other we are unsure if jones was still part of the case at that time or not but we know the date of trial that jones was not was denying appellants motion for continuance at the november hearing the court did reiterate the fact that jones was in jail and could not make not and this is not a direct quote but it's sad that it would not grant a continuance for new counsel to get prepared for the case and so those are the two two spots that you've identified that  management comments yes your honor and the fact that if he the trial court granted a continuance it wasn't continuing just one case it would have to continue to cases because jones and appellant were to be tried making this and denying his motion to continuance was the complexity of the case the trial court felt based on the state court and description of the case that it was a relatively simple case one that could aid easily be tried in a month if new counsel came on and in fact and the public defender bradshaw was actually able to prepare completely for the case in one month after how much to how much did the state court the appellate court rely on the prejudice problem we referenced that a few minutes ago seems to be a strong theme in that opinion doesn't it your honor they did speak much a lot about prejudice however in this court under at we look at the ultimate legal conclusion and not the stated reason in the decision and the ultimate legal conclusion was that the trial court did not abuse its discretion and this court looks if there was any reasonable arguments which support that legal conclusion and in the record there are again jones sitting in jail that factually simple case will counsel you i'm looking at the arkansas lapel opinion there is this sentence though and this is in what you have to r the trial judge made clear from the outset that no kid to new should be granted of the basis of a change of attorneys that's got to be unconstitutional right the judge can't begin a case by saying we're not going to have a continuous case of the base of change of attorneys right the trial court made career trial judge make clear from the outset no continuance on the basis of change of attorneys that's unconstitutional right well it's not an unconscionable debt an unconstitutional deprivation of a sixth amendment right to counsel though because there must be on reasoning and arbitrary isn't that unreasoning and arbitrary to say from the outset we're never going to give a continuous surely you agree with that you can't the trial judges of all the state of missouri or arkansas can't have an order saying we're never going to have  and reasonable all right thank you for your argument thank you lambert we'll hear from you in rebuttal but i want to clear one thing up i'm not sure if i heard this right but it is in the record the trial judge did say that he had a favorite trial date available as part of the dialogue at the  november fifteenth hearing in this case also regarding codefendant jones i'm glad that this has been talked about because i would suggest to you this is a big red herring in this case john all this his case wasn't disposed of until a month later in hundred in that but isn't it true at the time of the october november hearings the judge the trial judge was really concerned about jones well he said it was the right but his actions speak louder than words if he was that concerned about jones he would have forced him to an early court date along with daniel's why did he not do that why did he let jones stay in custody if he was that concerned about his pretrial incarceration why was that case not disposed of  they should have gone to trial together but somehow his case was put off and he stayed in jail despite all this alleged concerned about his excessive pretrial incarceration so i would suggest to you that the judge's actions speak louder than