an explicit dismissal case but the court also went dismiss the case held the defendant custody and because he was held in custody with the expectation that there would be for receiving this we're told that there rests on our determination of the legislative intent can we actually glean from that intent from the language of the statute as a whole for instance the deck of the paragraph one to be tied to static bites that if prior to trial and information are in time it no longer charges an offense that is subject to automatic transfer the offense must be tried in juvenile court and since no trial has occurred in this case why should we apply that same reasoning here right and that is opposing counsel wrong when he indicates in his brief that it may be applied retroactively unless doing so would offend the constitution that isn't right  ordinarily depends on the posture of the particular case out obviously that's important for two reasons one they use as an example the exact certain circumstances that in this case as something where man would not go up and it's also important because what they're doing here is responding to an argument that is very similar to the one respondent made here but they're also doing it in a dictates that the legislature here intended the amendment excluded jurisdiction provision to apply retroactively to defendants ongoing criminal prosecution the parties agree that the adventure act itself has no express statement of the amendments i'd like to turn to just as argument regarding the proceedings there after shall conform to the laws in force at the time of such proceeding your honour's the proceeding at issue under that provision is the juveniles ongoing criminal prosecution the plain language of the amendment itself states these charges and all the charges arising out of the same incident shall be prosecuted under the criminal laws of the state and here  proceeding must be initiated and thus the program proceeding under the plain language of section four is the juvenile criminal prosecution which here hasn't the trial has not even begun yet and certainly the mere filing of charges does not complete an  accident goes into effect but the question of what happens to an ongoing proceeding after the change becomes effective and specifically how far back does the new law go to regulate events is determined by the statute and statute which directly is wrong that respondents order contemplated for the proceedings and this action response order itself transfers his to the juvenile division and as just this time is pointed out that you the state must initiate a juvenile delinquency proceeding by founding petition but there are no longer any proceedings in criminal court on the criminal indictment and so the substantive effect of the transfer order was to dismiss the indictments and two weeks and the furthermore honors the patterson that the procedural changes by in case there is no retroactive impact here the decision i believe was within the law follow the sports precedent and state is not the legislature intended as it was necessary retroactivity to affect things that have already occurred it makes the logical sense to force the law further into the future and that's why it's direct evidence out re ninety's when the illinois legislature decided to expand the reach of criminal law over and so if this were were to apply the same logic that respond to the same