good morning my name is steven gentry representation are the sure this court should vacate the surest consecutive twenty five year sentence for attempt murder because the criminal court that entered the sentence did so without the the fence nine hundred ninety seven sets forth that no proceedings are to go forward immediately both criminal court except as specifically set forth in the juvenile court act the presumption that proceedings are to take place otherwise circumstances and that's what happened in this case where the first degree murder was automatically transferred and the attempt to murder case which grew up was out of the same set of circumstances he was found guilty of murder right that is critical to me she was adult criminal code for those offenses which triggered the automatic transfer into the court but british c two s under its explicit terms as it was in late two ninety seven trial the juvenile court provides further direction as to what the court has to do with that point the specific scenario here was an oversight that was left desired adult son saying under one of the traders that transfer previously so this indicates that but that was number one and oversight and number two that it was intended without statutory authority to have entered the consecutive twenty five year sentence and vacate that sentence we may end for oil the imposition of a sense which at this point would be time served having  since he is reached his twenty first birthday and the entry defendant to twenty five years on an ag bat with a firearm charge to pending appeal discharge arguing that of course he cannot be sentenced on a conviction of what you were not convicted this court agreed and remanded the matter back to the transport for we sentencing upon which the lower amending the original post conviction petition at which point this defendant had a hearing in two thousand and eight when that trial court dismissed the post convention petition is from that dismissal that we are here today and for the first time and never been raised are now discussing whether or not the sentence upon which the statute upon which this defense but defendant was sentenced i'm sure is a time murder conviction is void not void in the the fact remains that this offend it was properly sentenced and that any sort of attack on it at this point is void is not fully defined in attempts to circumvent jones by relying on a line of cases specifically  this hard on which only distinguishable from the facts of our case because in those cases those defendants weren't convicted of the enumerated offense and six say that transferred the defendant to the da court in the first place this is not a policy case at its very basic it's a case of statutory construction the most important facts here to keep in mind is that the suspend it was charged with a numerated offense that prompted him to transfer to the don't work for prosecution and all other offenses of the statute six say all other offenses that arise out of the same incident should also be prosecuted as an adult we cannot read six say separate from c i or c i need to be read in conjunction with one another what specifically happened here is that because the defendant was convicted of the the crime that brought him into the adult court in the first place the murder both that crime and the other charge that arose out of the same incident the attempt triggered see if the statute that states after trial the defendant if the defendant is convicted of any offense covered in six a then he should therefore be sentenced as an adult and therefore this defendant was properly sen murder and his attempt murder conviction nevertheless this defendant asked this not to adhere to the plain language of the statute of either six a or c i but instead invites this court to apply see eye to facts that are typical when see i  specifically states that only in the event that a defendant is not convicted of the offense that originally brought him into the adult court in the first place that just plainly simply did not happen  here as i mentioned before the cases upon which one it cites are completely wrong and i'd actually like to point out that he does rely upon which was the second district case there's an interesting point in eighty where that eighty quote points out that v we're dealing with a discussion we're hearing situation which we didn't happen here here is this was an automatic transfer in the eighty's there was nothing set out in that discretionary transfer part of the statute that talks about what would happen if a defendant was discretionary transfer to the adult court and then found not guilty of the crime that got him there in the first place eighteen points out that that wasn't the case that we have here in the mandatory he was found guilty of it and all of the charges that arise out of that same course of conduct which the babas they submit that a double shooting is a arising out of the same course of conduct put simply this offended was convicted of a crime that bottom t quiet and the for in the first place as well as the attack murder that arose out of that conduct in c i is the only approachable statute that can apply they need to be read in conjunction with each other it's not a hybrid situation where you can pick and choose because there is an attempt murder conviction we can read c i i that you can see that just flat out cannot do that and allowing a defendant to make such a request to have such a hybrid reading is really  properly transferred to the adult court for prosecution and is found guilty of the crime that transfer him there in the first place and this case of first degree murder and then there would be a second defendant who was automatically transferred but not found guilty of the transferrable offense that did not happen here that is not this defendant it's a fine it was properly transferred to the adult quite based on six a of the statute and properly sons it was attacked murder conviction based on c i a that s didn't ten for c to apply despite its erroneous inclusion of the word only which left this particular scenario uncovered under the act because the purposes of the acts and the subsequent actions of the legislature indicate that it