[00:00:05] Speaker 03:
Good morning, counsel.

[00:00:06] Speaker 03:
Good morning, Your Honors.

[00:00:10] Speaker 03:
Good morning, Your Honors, and may it please the court.

[00:00:12] Speaker 03:
My name is Elsa Felgar.

[00:00:13] Speaker 03:
I'm a Deputy Attorney General for the State of Nevada, and I represent respondents in this matter.

[00:00:20] Speaker 03:
I'd like to reserve three minutes for rebuttal, and I'll watch my time.

[00:00:23] Speaker 03:
Thank you.

[00:00:25] Speaker 03:
Respondent requests reversal of the Federal District Court's order with instructions to deny federal habeas relief.

[00:00:33] Speaker 03:
Before discussing de novo review, I'd like to address epideference.

[00:00:38] Speaker 03:
Here, the federal court failed to give deference owed to the Nevada appellate courts when deciding grounds one and ground three.

[00:00:46] Speaker 03:
In ground one, the federal court failed to analyze the Nevada Court of Appeals determination

[00:00:51] Speaker 03:
that the canvas was thorough.

[00:00:53] Speaker 03:
Instead, the court subjectively decided that the canvas distorted and created confusion as to the possible sentences, and then used that determination to find that the Nevada Court of Appeals erred in calling the canvas thorough.

[00:01:10] Speaker 03:
And the same happened in ground three.

[00:01:13] Speaker 03:
I would like to focus on ground one regarding de novo review.

[00:01:22] Speaker 03:
The state court's misstatement before and after the recess did not change the fact that King Hardiman knew he faced life without the possibility of parole.

[00:01:35] Speaker 03:
Following the misstatements, the trial court stated that he would listen carefully at sentencing and that King Hardiman

[00:01:44] Speaker 03:
faced a fixed term, 20 to 50, whether it was life with or it's life without.

[00:01:51] Speaker 03:
That's at 3R569.

[00:01:55] Speaker 03:
Following the canvas, King Hardiman filed a motion to withdraw his plea and dismiss counsel.

[00:02:02] Speaker 03:
And nowhere in either of those two motions does he state that he did not understand the sentencing ranges.

[00:02:08] Speaker 03:
He focuses on counsel.

[00:02:11] Speaker 03:
He understood that he faced life without the possibility of parole,

[00:02:14] Speaker 03:
going into the plea agreement.

[00:02:16] Speaker 03:
He signed the guilty plea agreement with the correct sentences.

[00:02:19] Speaker 03:
The sentences were listed on the first and second page.

[00:02:23] Speaker 03:
And he admitted at the post-conviction evidentiary hearing that he knew he faced life without the possibility of parole prior to the canvas.

[00:02:32] Speaker 03:
During that during that post-conviction evidentiary hearing he starts out by saying that He doesn't remember talking to counsel about sentences But then when pressed by the district attorney and then further by the court he does admit that he spoke to counsel and

[00:02:52] Speaker 03:
many times regarding the sentences, regarding the facts, regarding the case, and the possibilities of what could happen if he were to plead or go to trial.

[00:03:08] Speaker 03:
In addition, prior to the misstatement from the

[00:03:14] Speaker 03:
trial court, his attorney did state on the record to clarify that King Hardiman faced life without the possibility of parole following King Hardiman, following an issue with whether or not King Hardiman understood what his sentences were.

[00:03:33] Speaker 03:
And finally, when discussing coercion in his motion to dismiss counsel, he states that because Judge Barker allowed such illegal tactics, King Hardeman was highly intimidated by Kano into believing Judge Barker would allow the DA

[00:03:54] Speaker 03:
to perform more profound illegal tactics during trial, King Hardiman will certainly be convicted of either life without parole or death penalty, which indicates that Mr. King Hardiman, again, understood that he faced life without the possibility of parole.

[00:04:10] Speaker 03:
And it's important in this case, and I'd like to stress the point that in Brady v. United States, to determine whether a defendant's plea was knowing, voluntary, and intelligent

[00:04:23] Speaker 03:
we must consider the totality of the circumstances.

[00:04:25] Speaker 03:
And in order to do that, we have to look at what happened before the plea, which is evident in the post-conviction evidentiary hearing, during the plea, and what counsel's correction during the plea, and the court's statements after the two misstatements, before and after the recess.

[00:04:45] Speaker 03:
And when we look at the motion to withdraw counsel and the motion to, or excuse me, dismiss counsel and the motion to withdraw the plea.

[00:04:53] Speaker 03:
So all that taken, taking the totality of the circumstances environment understood that he faced life without the possibility of parole.

[00:05:02] Speaker 03:
The court's misstatements did not change that.

[00:05:04] Speaker 03:
And they didn't change that because he started out knowing the correct sentences.

[00:05:10] Speaker 03:
And he states that in his post-conviction evidentiary hearing.

[00:05:13] Speaker 03:
And then once the court, before the court even makes a statement, King Hardiman has some issue.

[00:05:21] Speaker 03:
And so the court does what it needs to do and stops the canvas.

[00:05:25] Speaker 03:
There's an issue.

[00:05:25] Speaker 03:
He's not agreeing to the plea.

[00:05:27] Speaker 03:
Let's stop.

[00:05:28] Speaker 03:
And that's when counsel asks for a recess to explain, presumably, the sentencing ranges, because that was the issue that happened right before the recess.

[00:05:39] Speaker 03:
And then afterward, although the court does say 20 to life without the possibility of parole, that doesn't invalidate the fact that King Hardiman knew prior to the canvas that he faced life without the possibility of parole.

[00:05:56] Speaker 03:
And also the 20 to life without the possibility of parole represents a

[00:06:02] Speaker 03:
summary of the ranges of sentences.

[00:06:06] Speaker 03:
So he knew 20, which was the minimum, and he knew life without the possibility of parole, which was the maximum.

[00:06:13] Speaker 03:
So he knew that when he signed his plea agreement and when he pled guilty.

[00:06:20] Speaker 03:
If Your Honors have no further questions on ground one, I will move on to ground three.

[00:06:27] Speaker 02:
Here's not.

[00:06:29] Speaker 03:
Thank you, Your Honors.

[00:06:30] Speaker 03:
Trial counsel was also not ineffective during the plea canvas.

[00:06:36] Speaker 03:
His counsel corrects the court prior to the court making any kind of misstatement.

[00:06:48] Speaker 03:
He does state, no, Your Honor, he faces, or the DA can argue for life without the possibility of parole.

[00:06:59] Speaker 03:
There is an issue that his counsel stops and speaks to King Hardiman at a recess in private.

[00:07:12] Speaker 03:
He has a moment with his client.

[00:07:14] Speaker 03:
He determines that that is what needs to happen.

[00:07:18] Speaker 03:
So he's effective in recognizing that there needs to be some kind of conversation.

[00:07:29] Speaker 03:
Presumably he does speak to King Hardiman.

[00:07:32] Speaker 03:
There's nothing in the record to indicate otherwise that he speaks to King Hardiman about the issue that just occurred.

[00:07:39] Speaker 03:
And then King Hardiman no longer has any questions.

[00:07:42] Speaker 03:
And counsel did not need to correct the court because it is clear from the record that he spoke to counsel, excuse me, counsel spoke to King Hardiman prior to the plea.

[00:08:00] Speaker 03:
at the recess.

[00:08:01] Speaker 03:
So there was no reason for him to stop.

[00:08:07] Speaker 03:
And if Your Honours don't have any questions, then I will reserve the rest of my time for rebuttal.

[00:08:16] Speaker 02:
It appears not, Council.

[00:08:17] Speaker 02:
Thank you.

[00:08:18] Speaker 02:
Thank you.

[00:08:23] Speaker 02:
It reflexes.

[00:08:34] Speaker 04:
Morning, counsel.

[00:08:35] Speaker 04:
Good morning and may it please the court Margaret Lambrose on behalf of Appellee Andre King-Hardeman.

[00:08:43] Speaker 04:
I will watch my time.

[00:08:44] Speaker 04:
Thank you.

[00:08:46] Speaker 04:
Nonsensical, confusing and troubling is how the lower court described the plea canvas in this case.

[00:08:56] Speaker 04:
This court should find the same and affirm.

[00:09:00] Speaker 04:
As to ground one,

[00:09:02] Speaker 04:
which is a record-based direct appeal claim, Boynken is clear.

[00:09:08] Speaker 04:
Because of the fundamental rights a defendant gives up by admitting to his own guilt, the knowing and voluntary nature of the guilty plea must be plain from the record.

[00:09:24] Speaker 04:
The record in this case from the guilty plea canvas is anything but clear.

[00:09:32] Speaker 04:
The court repeatedly told Mr. King-Hardeman that one of the sentences that he could receive pursuant to the guilty plea was 20 to life without the possibility of parole.

[00:09:47] Speaker 04:
Such a sentence does not exist under Nevada law.

[00:09:52] Speaker 02:
Counsel, is it fair to say that your argument is that your client was unaware

[00:10:00] Speaker 02:
that he was subject to life without the possibility of parole.

[00:10:04] Speaker 02:
Is that your argument?

[00:10:05] Speaker 04:
No, Your Honor.

[00:10:06] Speaker 04:
So I think that there is an important distinction.

[00:10:08] Speaker 04:
Mr. King Hardiman was aware of the sentence that he could face if he went to trial and he was found guilty at trial.

[00:10:21] Speaker 04:
That evidence came out at the post-conviction hearing, at the evidentiary hearing.

[00:10:26] Speaker 04:
Mr. King Hardeman made clear that his lawyers had explained to him that had he gone to trial and been found guilty, he could face life without the possibility of parole.

[00:10:36] Speaker 04:
The important distinction here is one

[00:10:40] Speaker 04:
Because this is a direct appeal claim, the court only considers the evidence that was before the appellate court at the time of the sentencing, at the time of the change of plea, and at the time of the hearing.

[00:10:56] Speaker 04:
I'm sorry, Your Honor.

[00:10:56] Speaker 02:
But is your argument then that he didn't understand at the time of the plea

[00:11:03] Speaker 02:
that he was subject to a sentence of life without the possibility of parole.

[00:11:07] Speaker 02:
Is that your argument?

[00:11:07] Speaker 04:
That is my argument, Your Honor.

[00:11:09] Speaker 02:
Is that argument based on the misstatement that was made by the court?

[00:11:12] Speaker 04:
That argument is based on the misstatement made by the court, and that argument is based on the fact that the plea agreement and any benefits that come along with pleading guilty is different than when a person chooses to go to trial and can be convicted at trial.

[00:11:29] Speaker 02:
So are you saying

[00:11:31] Speaker 02:
that we don't look to the plea agreement to determine whether or not he was made aware that he faced a sentence of life without the possibility of parole as a result of the plea agreement.

[00:11:43] Speaker 02:
You're telling us we can't look at the plea agreement to make that determination?

[00:11:47] Speaker 04:
No, Your Honor.

[00:11:48] Speaker 04:
So the court does look to the plea agreement, and the court looks to the circumstances surrounding the plea canvas.

[00:11:54] Speaker 04:
So the plea agreement and the plea canvas, and the circumstances surrounding that, where Mr. King-Hardeman had waited for six years for his day in court to go to trial, the morning of his trial, he's given a plea agreement.

[00:12:08] Speaker 04:
He has a very short amount of time to review it, and he believes that by pleading guilty, he will not receive a sentence of life without the possibility of parole if convicted.

[00:12:21] Speaker 04:
Does the plea agreement say that?

[00:12:22] Speaker 02:
What does the plea agreement say?

[00:12:23] Speaker 04:
No, Your Honor.

[00:12:24] Speaker 02:
The plea agreement... The plea agreement does inform him of the possibility of life without the possibility of parole.

[00:12:32] Speaker 04:
The plea agreement does correctly reflect

[00:12:36] Speaker 04:
the possible sentencing ranges under first degree murder.

[00:12:39] Speaker 01:
And the plea agreement also has a certificate from counsel that says, counsel has advised the defendant of the penalty that's possible, right?

[00:12:48] Speaker 04:
It does.

[00:12:49] Speaker 04:
And that's why under Boynken and Brady and its progeny, it is so important to look at the totality of the circumstances.

[00:12:59] Speaker 00:
Yeah, so you would agree that at best what we have is sort of mixed evidence.

[00:13:06] Speaker 00:
right, that he might have understood or received information from both the plea agreement as well as from his counsel, and then there were these confusing statements made by the court, correct?

[00:13:19] Speaker 04:
So, Your Honor, I think that if we're going to consider the evidence, I think that we have strong evidence

[00:13:25] Speaker 04:
that he received incorrect information from the court about the sentencing possibilities and we have less strong evidence and I would go as far to say weak evidence that he understood the consequences of pleading guilty by his

[00:13:41] Speaker 04:
by his signature on the guilty plea.

[00:13:43] Speaker 00:
What I'm having trouble with is, given sort of the mixed evidence, as I think you acknowledge and sort of we can disagree about what constitutes strong or weak evidence, but the reality is that there is mixed evidence.

[00:13:58] Speaker 00:
And our ability to review this, given the deference that's owed the court, the state court, I'm having difficulty understanding how

[00:14:10] Speaker 04:
we can find that the state court determination was objectively unreasonable.

[00:14:22] Speaker 04:
found that Mr. King Hardeman was thoroughly canvassed and that any confusion regarding the guilty plea was cleared up by his counsel during the recess.

[00:14:32] Speaker 04:
And I think a plain reading of this transcript from the plea canvas shows that Mr. King Hardeman did not understand when he entered that courtroom that he was pleading guilty

[00:14:46] Speaker 04:
to an agreement that had life without the possibility of parole on the table.

[00:14:51] Speaker 04:
Immediately at the beginning of the plea canvas, the first thing that Mr. King-Hardeman says is, I'm not taking anything that includes a life sentence, which obviously shows he didn't understand the plea agreement.

[00:15:05] Speaker 00:
But then he ultimately, after the recess, and was asked again with the understanding that he could potentially face a sentence

[00:15:16] Speaker 00:
of life without the chance of parole agreed to the plea, correct?

[00:15:20] Speaker 04:
Well, but the problem with what happened after the recess is after the recess, the court again misadvised Mr. King-Hardeman about the sentencing exposure he faced pursuant to the plea agreement.

[00:15:34] Speaker 04:
The court again said, you're facing 20 to life without the possibility of parole.

[00:15:40] Speaker 04:
And then the court said, you're facing 20 on the bottom life with.

[00:15:46] Speaker 04:
The court never explained to Mr. King Hardiman that the sentence that he could receive by pleading guilty and forgoing his constitutional right to trial

[00:15:56] Speaker 04:
was a sentence of life without the possibility of parole.

[00:16:00] Speaker 04:
That was never explicitly told to him by the court.

[00:16:04] Speaker 04:
And then Mr. King-Hardeman goes on during the plea hearing to show obvious confusion

[00:16:11] Speaker 04:
About the facts that he was pleading guilty to when the court asked, you know, mr. King Hardeman Do you understand that you're pleading guilty to facts that show premeditated murder?

[00:16:22] Speaker 04:
Mr. King Hardeman said wait a minute I'm pleading guilty to that and it makes sense that he would have been confused and he would have not agreed to plead to anything that would avail him to first-degree murder because he intended to proceed to trial with a heat of passion defense and

[00:16:39] Speaker 01:
of the exchange of sentencing.

[00:16:46] Speaker 01:
There are three options, life without, life with, and a 20 to 50 structure.

[00:16:51] Speaker 01:
We went through it when I took your plea.

[00:16:53] Speaker 01:
And the answer is not, hey, wait a minute, I didn't know that life without was on the table.

[00:17:01] Speaker 01:
The answer is just yes.

[00:17:03] Speaker 01:
I mean, doesn't that support?

[00:17:05] Speaker 01:
I mean, isn't that some evidence supporting the state court's view of what happened here?

[00:17:11] Speaker 04:
Well, at that point, Your Honor, I think taking into consideration the procedural posture of the case at that time, Mr. King Hardeman, by that point at sentencing, had already tried to withdraw his plea.

[00:17:23] Speaker 04:
had already tried to terminate his lawyers, had tried to even appeal the decision denying his motion to withdraw the plea prior to sentencing.

[00:17:35] Speaker 04:
Everything that he had done had shown him that there was nothing more that he could do to challenge his plea agreement until after sentencing, when then he would be able to appeal

[00:17:47] Speaker 04:
the direct appeal claim related to the voluntariness of the plea.

[00:17:51] Speaker 04:
So I don't think that that is evidence that Mr. King-Hardeman knew that he was essentially looking at a life without the possibility of parole sentence at the time he entered his plea agreement.

[00:18:03] Speaker 04:
I think that's just evidence that Mr. King-Hardeman was aware there was nothing more he could do until he appealed his conviction.

[00:18:12] Speaker 01:
Maybe but a review of that transcript suggests that he wasn't really shy about objecting to things that he he disagreed about so I mean isn't this I mean maybe I'm just repeating the question, but it Isn't the sort of you know a call that the state court gets to make you know with a fairly heavy level of deference from us Well your honor.

[00:18:35] Speaker 04:
I think that when you say that mr.. King Hardeman was not shy I think that

[00:18:39] Speaker 04:
that that is true because something else that Mr. King Hardeman made clear during the sentencing hearing was that he was still consistent with his trial defense his heat of passion trial defense so you know I think that from the sentencing hearing what we see is somebody who wanted to go to trial who is still advocating his trial defense and had done everything that he could have done up into that point to

[00:19:08] Speaker 04:
try to withdraw the plea.

[00:19:11] Speaker 02:
Council, what's your strongest Supreme Court, United States Supreme Court decision that this campus was not thorough?

[00:19:19] Speaker 04:
Boynton versus Alabama, Your Honor.

[00:19:22] Speaker 04:
Yes, I would say Boynton is my strongest case on that point.

[00:19:29] Speaker 04:
So I do want to also make clear that my position is consistent with the lower court's position.

[00:19:37] Speaker 04:
And I think the lower court got it right when it found that deference should not be given to the state court's decision in this case.

[00:19:46] Speaker 04:
Because there is no reasonable way to determine that the canvas was thorough given what we know

[00:19:58] Speaker 04:
happened at the plea canvas.

[00:20:01] Speaker 04:
Second, trial counsel, unless the court has any more questions about Claim 3, I'll turn to Claim 3.

[00:20:06] Speaker 02:
Well, I do.

[00:20:07] Speaker 02:
I want to know the precise language in Boykin that supports the argument that the plea canvas in this case was not thorough.

[00:20:16] Speaker 02:
What precise language are you relying on?

[00:20:21] Speaker 04:
Well, so in Boykin, the court specifically said, because a guilty plea is an admission to all the...

[00:20:29] Speaker 04:
I apologize your honor I don't have the page okay, but I do have the site for the court okay, three nine five us mm-hmm two three eight two four two two four two okay, yes your honor I'm there So the the guilty plea is an admission to all elements and

[00:20:50] Speaker 04:
of a formal criminal charge, it cannot be truly voluntary unless the defendant possesses an understanding of the law in relation to the facts.

[00:21:02] Speaker 02:
I don't see that on page 242, but even so, that doesn't discuss the canvas and what's required for a canvas to be considered thorough.

[00:21:12] Speaker 04:
Well, Your Honor, in order for the court to determine that the plea is voluntary, all of the facts, including the court's canvas, must be considered in the voluntariness analysis.

[00:21:24] Speaker 02:
But I was hoping that you could point me to some language that specifically discusses the canvas and what's required.

[00:21:34] Speaker 02:
This case talks generally about the safeguards before a guilty plea is accepted, but it doesn't really

[00:21:41] Speaker 02:
definitively address the Canvas specifically?

[00:21:47] Speaker 02:
Would you agree?

[00:21:48] Speaker 04:
I would agree with that, Your Honor, but I do think that the Canvas is one important part of the entire analysis that must be undertaken to determine whether or not the play is voluntary and knowing.

[00:22:04] Speaker 04:
And then Brady also, Brady versus United States stated, pleading guilty is a grave and solemn act to be accepted only with care and discernment.

[00:22:16] Speaker 02:
Well, that cuts both ways.

[00:22:18] Speaker 02:
Because if it's grave and solemn, then the representations he made about understanding the plea agreement and signing the plea agreement, those are also grave and solemn.

[00:22:29] Speaker 02:
So the court is,

[00:22:32] Speaker 02:
entitled to rely on those representations as well.

[00:22:35] Speaker 02:
So it cuts both ways.

[00:22:38] Speaker 04:
That's correct, Your Honor, but I do think that because this is a due process constitutional right to the voluntary and knowing nature of the plea, that the court is also required to ensure that that plea is given knowing and voluntarily.

[00:22:59] Speaker 04:
And I think that when the court misstates something as serious

[00:23:03] Speaker 04:
as the potential penalties when a defendant has made it clear that he will not and does not intend to accept a sentence of life without the possibility of parole, and then we have a court telling him that he will receive a sentence of something, 22 life without the possibility of parole,

[00:23:25] Speaker 04:
without ever explicitly saying life without the possibility of parole, the totality of the circumstances there go to show that the plea was not knowing and voluntary.

[00:23:36] Speaker 04:
And I see that I am out of time, so I will just, in sum, the Constitution does not permit a conviction to stand when the plea was secured through a fundamental misunderstanding about the direct consequences that come from pleading guilty.

[00:23:55] Speaker 04:
the lower court properly granted relief, and this court should affirm.

[00:24:00] Speaker 02:
Thank you, Council, and about all.

[00:24:05] Speaker 03:
Good morning.

[00:24:18] Speaker 03:
I'd like to start with that no case talks about the specific language that needs to happen in a plea.

[00:24:25] Speaker 03:
There's no talismanic language that needs to be said.

[00:24:30] Speaker 03:
And so a court is allowed to explain, has the ability and the flexibility to explain a plea canvas the way that it needs to.

[00:24:45] Speaker 00:
It doesn't have the flexibility to make statements that are inaccurate, correct?

[00:24:49] Speaker 03:
That is correct.

[00:24:50] Speaker 03:
That's correct.

[00:24:51] Speaker 03:
And this is not a model canvas.

[00:24:54] Speaker 03:
However, the court, although they made misstatements, one before and one after the recess,

[00:25:03] Speaker 03:
The misstatements did not specifically contradict what was in the guilty plea agreement.

[00:25:09] Speaker 03:
Instead, it was a range of sentences.

[00:25:12] Speaker 03:
It still explained that he had a minimum of 20 and a maximum of life without the possibility of parole.

[00:25:20] Speaker 03:
And I think it's also important to note that when the court made that misstatement, it didn't just say 20 to life.

[00:25:27] Speaker 03:
The court specifically said life without the possibility of parole.

[00:25:31] Speaker 03:
And that was the maximum sentence.

[00:25:33] Speaker 03:
And again, King Hardiman knew that prior to the plea canvas that he faced life without the possibility of parole because he says so in the post-conviction evidentiary hearing.

[00:25:46] Speaker 03:
And the lower court looked at the canvas and made a subjective decision by reviewing the canvas without giving deference.

[00:26:01] Speaker 03:
to the Nevada Court of Appeals.

[00:26:03] Speaker 03:
The Nevada Court of Appeals did not unreasonably determine that the campus was thorough because the campus allowed King Hardiman to raise questions, recessed to allow counsel to confer with King Hardiman, reviewed whether King Hardiman read and understood the constitutional rights within the plea, explained the mechanics of the sentencing hearing, presented King Hardiman with the minimum and maximum sentences in accordance with NRS 200-0304B, clarified

[00:26:30] Speaker 03:
the possible legal theory supporting first degree murder and reviewed the factual allegations presented in the amended superseding indictment.

[00:26:40] Speaker 03:
So this court in Little also reviewed, although it was not the same misstatement, it had to do with whether it was a probational offense

[00:26:56] Speaker 03:
The court did outline what happened during the canvas to make it thorough, and it was similar to what happened here.

[00:27:05] Speaker 03:
So the court many times also stopped the canvas to ask King Hardiman if he had any questions, and he reminded him that there's a jury waiting.

[00:27:15] Speaker 03:
This doesn't need to happen.

[00:27:17] Speaker 03:
We can call in the jury now.

[00:27:18] Speaker 03:
Your attorneys have done a lot of work to prepare for this, and he still wants to go forward.

[00:27:26] Speaker 03:
And then in ground three, just to touch on that briefly, the federal court failed to analyze the Nevada Court of Appeals determination that King-Harneman was correctly informed of the consequences by his attorneys.

[00:27:40] Speaker 03:
It's clear from the record that, or I should say,

[00:27:47] Speaker 03:
Nowhere in the record that King Hardiman didn't explain to or sorry that his counsel the King Hardiman's counsel didn't explain to him the sentencing ranges there's talk about

[00:28:01] Speaker 03:
what the judge, how unfair the judge would be and that goes into his coercion argument, but the record does not support the fact that, or the claim that his counsel did not explain to him what sentencing ranges he faced.

[00:28:20] Speaker 03:
Any discussion as to whether there was an unreasonable application of Boykin in ground three is misplaced.

[00:28:27] Speaker 03:
It's a Strickland case.

[00:28:28] Speaker 03:
And so we have to look at whether or not the Nevada Court of Appeals correctly applied Strickland.

[00:28:34] Speaker 03:
And I just want to point out that in the federal court's order, the court says that there was a misapplication of Boykin and Strickland.

[00:28:42] Speaker 03:
CITES says regarding the Boykin application to look towards ground one, but the court doesn't make a Boykin claim in ground one.

[00:28:52] Speaker 03:
It was an unreasonable determination of the facts.

[00:28:54] Speaker 03:
So at this point we have a Strickland claim and there is no, and the federal court fails to analyze that Strickland claim as it should under given, at put deference.

[00:29:07] Speaker 03:
If this court doesn't have any questions for me,

[00:29:12] Speaker 03:
I'd ask that this court reverse the federal district court's order with instruction to, or just reverse the federal district court's order.

[00:29:25] Speaker 02:
Thank you, counsel.

[00:29:26] Speaker 02:
Thank you to both counsel for your helpful arguments.

[00:29:28] Speaker 02:
Thank you.

[00:29:29] Speaker 02:
The case is argued and submitted for a decision by the court that completes our calendar for the morning.

[00:29:33] Speaker 02:
We are on recess until 9.30 a.m.

[00:29:36] Speaker 02:
tomorrow morning.