i think there was a there was a research article cited in two months briefs that half of the inmates don't leave prison until before fifty five we're sorry buffer our supreme court has kind of delineated that line for juveniles at the age of for at forty years and you know he he was an adult in that he was eighteen but he years i mean anyone convicted of murder the minimum is twenty years that's correct and then the firearm advancement is an automatic twenty five years i mean the legislature has chosen or any eighteen year old put forty five years on in the conviction for murder or the fire that's correct john or for our except a sentence of argument but for the if we're going through the proportionate penalties argument neighborhood or who's street is that or there's a lot of you tube videos in this in this case about each rapper making rap videos on you tube so th want to be is rich and they want to be like all those rappers who have succeeded and if it's you know i'm sorry for my language but it's crazy that they think that beating  murder conviction or having this murder conviction is their route to be famous being popular being that rap star that you know all these teenagers want to be in and i think that's very clear in the   group they were talking about meeting at this recreational center so it seemed very apparent that none of these teenagers sought about what they were doing and again sumanda it just just fall four months  was truly that innocent you know the bill that was the was the dissent in this case was he the one sitting in a one of the cells and shooting across the top of the car well that was that was the evidence that was produced th conviction proceedings and in this case as in harris the defendant is raising for the st time on direct appeal as a white th amendment and proportionate penalties challenges to his sentence as in harris the defendant's claims argue that new developments  neuroscience suggest that a prevent it had a particular characteristics of juveniles as described in miller versus alabama and that sentence was unconstitutional for those reasons and as in harris the defendant has argued in this case there was no evidence you're hearing and no factual findings in the court low regarding how evolving science on juvenile maturity applied to this adult defendant in particular so under the supreme court's decision in harris the record in this case is not sufficiently conviction proceedings now the defendant in his argument claims that the record in this case does contain the facts required to consider is as applied claims and he points to  contained in the record concerning the circumstance is a crime and points to facts in the present the best occasion report but none of those facts that the defendant draws from the record take the place of the evidence you're hearing and the factual findings that the only supreme court in harris that was required is required for kind consideration of as applied claims and i'd also note that the defendant in harris raised that same argument and the court in harris rejected it a paragraph forty six the defendant in  in the trial court applied to his personal level of culpability or rehabilitative potential i don't know that in the couple of years since the supreme court's decision in harris it's  this was an eighteen year old defendant sentenced to mandatory natural life based on accountability barry and the appellate court held that his sentence violated proportion of penalties where he was not present at the scene did not help plan the offenses and had no violent criminal history also that was a post conviction case in this case it was a discretionary term not natural life the defendant was the sole shooter who brought a loaded gun  so because the because the record is insufficient under harris to consider these as applied claims this court should decline to review them and consider only the excessive sentencing  claim and in that case in or on that claim that offended cannot show that the court abused its discretion the sentencing range for st degree murder was twenty to sixty years the court imposes hundreds of thirty years which was of course on the lower end of that scale and less than the forty five years that the state asked for these range on the firearms and hence it was twenty five dollars to life and the court imposed the minimum firearms and hence meant of twenty five years on this the defendant's age was of course in evidence a trial was in the p s i i was also the subject of defense counsel's argument and the court said in sentencing the defendant that it considered all of these factors and these same arguments are responsive to the defendant's other argument which is that the court didn't consider the defendant's rehabilitative prospects when sentencing him again and the court may not have used the word rehabilitation but that doesn't mean that the court ignored these factors  to the seriousness of the offense i'd like to discuss the evidence of that offense now there were six people in the car including the defendant and the other five people in the car all testified for the state and four of those witnesses testified that before they left the home of one of these people to drive to the location of a pre planned fight with another group of people they defended showed his friends his loaded gun these witnesses testified that the offended had the only loaded gun in the car and that he and that he carried it to in the car to the designated area where the spite was to occur and that the defendant sat on the door ledge of the car that was driving through that area pulled out his gun emptied all of the bullets in the gun into a crowd inside outside the community center and this and the result was that an eleven year old boy was shot in the back and he died soon thereafter i don't doubt that the driver of this car testified that after the shooting the defendant was quote excited and he said that he quote wasn't shooting in the air that's what the defense that the defendant said after the shooting that he wasn't shooting in the air the defendant also said that he thought he quote caught a body d or the quote body dropped and that's at page one  the record so this record shows a level of premeditation planning intentionality and it also shows the defendant's character and on that record the thirty year sentence for st degree murder and be statutory minimum firearms and hence that was not an abuse discretion and i note that in the reply brief a page eight the defendant cites from other cases in which the appellate court did produce a sentence in light of the defendant's age in one of them clark the defendant had no prior felony convictions to to drive together to the scene of what was scheduled to be a fight in fact there was testimony that that the plan was either to engage in a fight or to fire warning shots  killed this boy testified that the defendant was the only person in the car who had long hair and there was an eyewitness completely on involved in this who was a resident of the housing development where the shooting occurred who who saw the whole thing fully base that in collateral proceeding the argument here is that it is because of the specific back because of the bench trial because of the witnesses at  i think this question take that into consideration when considering the sentencing argument as far as i know there is there's the co defendants some of them are cousins some of them grew up together and consider each of their brothers pick fights with his friends this is all qualities of you that there are distinct different views you know not being able to focus and getting into arguments with teachers of course not all students are like this but