life sentence and are there some analytical distinctions between the facial challenge and the as applied challenge that i will be discussing shortly but both of those challengers share a fundamental law which is that below a constitution specifically says that when you set penalties or when you choose a sentence you have to take  defacto life sentence as a mandatory minimum what it has done is it has said we're not going to take that into account we're not going to consider restoring this defendant's useful citizenship do you have any cases that apply this to somebody who eighteen as opposed to with children so you taylor for example consider whether or not the legislature had desisted the multiple murder case and what they said is that the legislature  so how is it there in europe it was important i think to understand that when you're talking about a facial challenge in any set of facts the question isn't can you do this to any individual the question is can and so they limited in aguilar just to those people but then they reconsidered the question and birds and burns involved a convicted felon and we all know that you can ban gun deception for people but the court still sat even and that's why her murder challenging the mandatory minimum sentence here is going to affect the life especially the sentencing scheme took away any discretion the judge might otherwise have to consider rehabilitate was a combination of convictions correct if  years because it's more than forty years so even if you're only looking at least at that conviction he's there's still a problem there that said when you have multiple convictions  facial challenge relies on the premise that the legislature there's nothing inherent about this offense that the legislature could reasonably conclude it makes it impossible to rehabilitate not have considered th with the legislature did was create a mandatory defacto license so what i'm saying is that back legislative action necessarily takes rehabilitation so any time they create  constitutional because it would not be reasonable to conclude that the nature of this offense is such that for the what offense would it be constitutional  rehabilitate potential we're not asking you to decide that the trial judges are deciding we're asking you to just decide ok given the demetrius rehabilitated attentional what does that mean for this mandatory life and twenty one the same exact things that led the u s supreme court to say you can't give a juvenile mandatory life sentence also apply to me in the why is that specifically because we're talking about the law does acknowledges a difference between minors under eighteen in generally people who are overweight but better still you're saying is it the same psychological consideration should be cut off at a certain age right just because somebody nineteen  we're not saying that dimitri gets the benefit of miller because he's eighteen and eighteen year olds like a seventeen year that would be in a post which is what we're saying is that we have a defendant who has rehabilitated potential w but what does a one hundred and five years sentence most of which needs to be served is it likely to preclude this individual from getting out of jail probably do you agree that because it would be unconstitutional supplied and if you're eighteen if you're twenty one dollars if you're forty what if you have a four year old that has no prior years and the place we cited for example people versus decatur which is very much on point what if you had to cater situation for getting the age in for the moment where it was a bar fights and as a result of  fight an individual pulls out a gun play nice and soft a fashion someone has no priors obviously as a difference in age and the judge says you know you're a pillar of the community you're screwed up here i find that you have rehabilitation time child the question that that this panel is kind of asked for does it apply differently to this particular defendant it will be the same case anywhere i would say not only would the answer most likely be yes the more importantly the courts have set in analyzing exactly those questions have they have they not considered rehabilitation the courts have said well we presume they have but more importantly that isn't the most important factor in this particular case the trial judge very carefully looked at and addressed both the age and his lack of criminal history the judge sack but for that i would have said you know defendant acknowledged that but for that i would have sense and even more help to put a lot of weight on the trial court and his statement can we also read into the trial court's decision not to impose a twenty six in finding that there were none of those factors present here defendant claims that he was scared that he was afraid the facts are consistent with that in addition to you know i think he  was no here it wasn't a full blown there was nothing here so when when we argue it when the people are human our grief that it was in the record wasn't fully developed we're not suggesting the record wasn't developed as far as  believe the judge's comments regarding rehabilitation is so profound why because the judge did what he was supposed to do the judge made comments on the series of the  fences the jury determined that the self defense claim was invalid the judge to obviously in news in the language of of he executed the victim certainly read that self defense was not appropriate the judge that i'm applying that i'm sentencing in hand to what i've said to me for for both the murder and the armed robbery i would never say this defendant despite that to a minimum there is nothing that suggests that facially or as applied is you know unconstitutional or is inappropriate only if the defendant was a juvenile might that change defendant is not a as far as abuse of discretion like the end of the argument is the saying the judge did not abuse discretion he very carefully consider and much more so than in most cases laid out his concerns of considerations of to either bring a gun which you haven't seen was just jast or at the very least grab the gun from the victim and utilize that despite being in a position where he didn't need to go very briefly as to whether or not he brought the gun i would strongly suggest that an individual is not going to have i'm not that familiar with guns but it had  three safeties on it and had to be caught you're not going to have something pointing toward your family jewels with all the safeties off with the gun cocked and the time frame of the defendant is now i think in our brief we very carefully show what does corroborate your kind of brother's testimony and what conflicts with the fine for these reasons we were asked that you re useful citizenship and that's also important when you're your bottom line is even if you gave him the minimum is still the fact of life he's entitled to a new sentencing hearing is that your position yes and the reason for