hearings produces on its website as well as several newspaper articles both from the los angeles and san francisco area that cast i think significant light on what a reasonable do with a life sentence was being admitted to parole did not meant that petitioner had no real reason to go to the two thousand and five hearing that was set initially in this to court to mention that the caption but the notice rather i'd have to submit could equally be interpreted and very logically be interpreted to refer to reference the life sentence that might not actually occurred in it since the two thousand and five proceeding with style in the matter of life term consideration but your honor if i may the life term could have reference to the life imprisonment term that was imposed upon my client your honor's interpretation if i take that point from the court correctly is one of the two possible interpretations the for my client a lay person i don't know that it's  it would not be our position that it would be a basis to put any weight on for this court and it's making its decision as to whether or not he was on notice it seems clear from my client's actions that at least on a subjective level when he learned of this for the first time in two thousand and ten and took his administrative remedy he clearly wasn't on notice i understand that even if the court felt as the district court did that somehow the style that was afforded to that hearing should have conveyed some information to my client the reality is it didn't and i don't know whether the fact that you just felt read it the way the court may choose to read it means that that justifies an equation with reasonable or due diligence or respectfully i urge the court to conclude that it fact the defense attorney or the prosecutor was aware but as far as the record that we have shows they made no mention of it it would seem with a fair reading from the record is that all through the parties the trial counsel that is the gist of the defense  district attorney and the defense attorney and the presiding judge all believe this was a lawful sentence maybe there was some subterfuge but i don't know that we have anything in front of us to suggest that it seems like it's just simply an honest mistake but it was a mistake to my client's that treatment and it may well be that the state trial court could not lawfully have imposed that said but that's where my client's allegations to the effect that this was important to him become score because if in fact he had been accurately informed as to the state of the law then we have the question what would he have accepted the plea offer that was offered to him and i'm not a position to answer our record doesn't disclose what it discloses is it was important to him quite independent of whether or not the caption should have notified him that he had actually been sentenced to a life time parole and quite independent as to whether he had an obligation to attend the first hearing with respect to tolling did he have any obligation during the period in question which is quite a long period did he have an independent obligation simply to investigate his sentence what it was and just because of it if you want to take an investigation you clearly could have found it out well i'm not sure that it that i'd have to agree that could agree with the court that he clearly could have found it up perhaps he could have i'm not sure that as a i'm sorry your honor i don't know if there's a difference between the federal on the state california state law on that point i know that the states and it's the pronouncement of sin it's didn't address this point and in terms of focusing it back on the due diligence of course goes to the superior court the period part he began a series of state hey this is in the california state court system yes you are each seeking to invalidate this based on the same premise that we're here today he was seeking to invalidate the propounded several different claims starting for example with it was ineffective assistance of his trial counsel to fair to fell the colac to correct the iranian statement the trial court made also that he had been deprived of due process and that he wasn't given the benefits of the plea he believed he struck whether or not the remedy that could be fashioned would need to be a vacation of the conviction or whether it could be simply an enforcement of the plea bargain and i think that would have to lead to a lower court to determine probably state court that saying that's wholly unbelievable they did make that finding your honor and i would respectfully urges horton to differ with that i don't believe that there's any basis for the state court to have made that fine doesn't matter i think it does matter in the sense that court said that's where the sentences i don't think there's any reason for us to believe that he held any separate belief from what the court told him that that is what he was asking doesn't matter whether you know i don't think it does but i  mean you're in the to your ships in the night meaning he's saying i would not accept the plea bargain had i known it was a lifetime graw which means it clearly mattered yes it did clearly matter and he has stated that a number of different fora and consistently in the state court says ask i believe all that's correct and outer edges court to disregard that finding from the state court simply because there's no basis to substantiate it and in particular again i bring us back to the focus of the role to a one motion there's every reason for this court to hearings i'm sorry on our record doesn't tell us and i get my suspicion would be that he has not however since they were to have been calendared every five years in the first was two thousand and five and then two thousand and ten is when the problem was first brought to his attention and of course as we only now be close to term for him but he's not quite there yet thank you officer thank you c that he was eligible for parole should have been a motivating factor well wait a minute let's take his position at face value and i think it's perfectly plausible he knew we all know we all know that he wasn't getting a pro at that i think how does he know that if he goes to the parole hearing he gets to look at his prison file and that information will be in he doesn't necessarily have to know that information would have been in there but he dylan and should have required him to attend the hearing or at least review the prison file in order to prepare for that first hearing or for future hearings as i said it isn't do you dispute that the first time harris learned that he had lifetime parole instead of five year what would be his reason for not pursuing it missy is she sort of hoping to spend more time in person mr kind of thing where if he had any reason to suspect that this was a program to educate prison and constitutional law right and it turns out that people who attended that program with it has one of the exercises examine your own your own record and you know bill constitutional arguments about the grocery of your your conviction right let's say that we have been sort of not diligent by failing to take the program because somewhere along the way he this several times a day right this is the first situation that's why i'm actually the question so assuming it's a different situation and so my question i think he would not have diligence would not have required him to attend a program why not because there legends requires a petition for to to pursue his rights when there's an opportunity he has a right to attend the program right but i would say that it would depend on the great degree of rights as well so attending a  it's right he has a right to attend the program i think ational program and here they might do him good you know maybe he attends educational program he might improve his chances for parole because he shows that he you know he he's how are they different plotting to agree with me do not that not attending the occasional program would not be like a diligence i do agree with that yes it would not again so tell me now how they're different since you were so anxious so it's a different case well because parole prone volves a right for prisoners to be released he's pursuing a right to be released from prison when he's attending is probably the time i would change somewhat let's say you get sort of prison credits because he expected to find anything about the length of sprouter but because he wanted he would need to prepare for future hearings for example to make sure that the record is accurate and i don't know what reason he would have question and i think your answer is you don't know yes which one controls i'm not i'm not sure which one controls you're on but i would say that under the one day it's when he found our could have found out so file suspicion that gee maybe what the judge told me was wrong right but i would say that the pro hearing itself should have been sufficient reason i understand but let's say we don't buy that let's go persuade the parole hearing was enough of a trigger w present because at the very least he should have reviewed whether the terms of his plate was correct and remember he claims that the place in the program was so important to him that he would have been that he would have preferred to face forty years in prison right i think all prisoners are has right that all prisoners have a responsibility to double check the second guess the judge so whatever the judge garzon even of the lawyer doesn't tell him judg four and if i may then just conclude by observing for the court's benefit that once my client i'm aware of this i think he does demonstrate what this court might appreciate as an exemplary record in an attempt to pursue his remedies he's not a litigant to under his b s dallied in the way that he presented his california state hevia says or the way in which you transition to the federal system once it became aware of this it seems to me he's a very good model of diligence so this really does turn on this cour