kate good morning may it please the court my name's eric weaver appearing on behalf of petitioner try to reserve three minutes of my time it seems to me obviously that the first question that the court has to address is whether the california court of appeal either ignored a political precedent or failed to apply it it seems to me trail to fail to apply it in a reasonable fashion seems to me the answer to that is clearly yes ty guides that evaluation the california court of appeal did not make any proportionality analysis here at all it simply said this look at the face said that there are a number of cases that uphold twenty five to life sentences for minimal current offenses and that was the end of it so i think the court of appeal clearly refused to apply the proportionality and now i think it's a case of better case for  violation of the eighth amendment than anybody i think you're one of the and driving i think the factors that make this case exquisitely rare are in solomon says when you're looking at the proportionality you compare minimal threat to society i think also his culpability is very minimal here this is a unique situation where a drug addict is not using the drugs for reckon that racial purpose but for a medically recognized therapeutic purpose he has psychological and physical symptoms which are dramatic and the drug he was using minimizes those symptoms some of us have been down that road to drugs illegal is illegal in this particular case though your honor when he was released from the c r c the last time he was sent back to the placer county drug treatment facility for continuation of his prescription of ritalin but due to an administrative foul up which was not his fault he was kept out of that program for eight months so he was left on his own and lamentably returned to methamphetamine i think another really key point here is that implies that the defendant hasn't learned from his prior incarcerations he's never been incarcerated before this is the first time he's been sent to prison he's been to the c r c as a drug addict but he's never been in prison before so it's not a situation where he's been in i agree that the standard has to be whether the proportionality analysis as applied to this case shows that there are unique facts about this case and i think that the facts peculiar to this defendant are unique and i think that under that that there is some supreme court precedent out there that the california court has either misapplied are applied in and unreasonable fashion and that he cannot do the court was required to look at mr barkley a individually and decide on balance was this the type of person that the three strikes law was intended to apply to the court made that finding and unlike wh usually the case in state court where there are simply papers filed on each side and the court simply making a ruling there was a complete hearing at the state court in which the psychologist came in and testified the his residences in order to finance that and he turned to burglary after he finished embezzling from his employment and when that employment was terminated then burglaries or the manner in which he financed his habit the state court had the obligation to look at both sides but ever his psychological disorders were regrettable though they were whether he had the right to remain out in the public and continue to victimize the rest of society in order to finance it the court decided no he didn't have that right the court went through all the steps considered the information came to a reasonable decision under the law unless this court has their questions i'm li i just have two quick points first with respect to the last point that was made by responded it was not a dick quick question of whether he remains in public or goes to prison for twenty five years to life the court also have the opportunity to sentence him as a second striker which would put him in jail for eight to ten years which is a pretty substantial sentence for this type of crime the second case in terms of whether the trial court or the court of appeal actually carried out the analysis that's required in both cases they looked exclusively to the prior offenses and they talked about his prior record there was no discussion in either court about there was evidence about the current offense but there was no discussion by the superior court or by the court of appeal of the nature of the offense occurred offense and the nature of the current offender they only talked about the prior offenses that indicates that the prior offenses were carrying the load and the courts have said that that's not proper you also have to take into consider the current offense with that i'll submit it thank you