reason about it no reason is statement he did not make a mention of the fact that his prior friend christopher had been shot by a rival gang member but that could have been viewed by the jury as a self serving statement and prejudice which he did here because henderson testified he has made a sufficient claim that she would have been there's a reasonable probability he would have been given that nd degree murder instruction and for these reasons there are factors that are reviewing pork or the trial court should look at it to decide whether his youth was treated in the consideration why can't we look at the these factors these quote hardly factors then you don't get a new sentencing hearing either in a p c or andrew review of a denial of a piece successful piece and i say to the case of the petition as there were in this case about his you know lack of education that showed he had more of a juvenile brain that those kinds of things can also be considered it's not just the sentencing hearing there are other factors that the court can consider and n did he have the aptitude to present their to the trial court because i presume what they were alluding to was either a waiver or forfeiture of the opportunity but he didn't do it so you don't get a raised in the two thousand and six post conviction petition at that time defendant knew about it anderson defendant knew that he had asked his counsel to call him as a witness defendant knew that anderson had not been called as a witness his burden as that prejudice there is no showing of cause here cause is an objective factor that impeded defendant from raising this in an earlier petition and again for the same reasons  as to why he did not get anderson to come forward earlier yes anderson indicated according to the documents file that he would not have testified to trial finally in tw show an objective factor that he has not met here with respect to the other problem the sharing of prejudice he also was unable to show prejudice where this was not explained that in fact at the trial so that the defendant shot in retaliation because one of his own had been shot earlier aren't even if there was any deficient performance there was no showing of prejudice under strickland again anderson did not see anything and the outcome based on something that he didn't even see regarding the shooting would not have made a reasonable probability of a different outcome this statement that a defendant has to make he does have to share cause and prejudice and one can say you know with respect to no rind of cases coming down at certain times since his i don't inability to raise it any earlier was there stains and so he can't he can't do that based on the fact that he is a young adult discretionary thirty year sentence and right there he cannot show prejudice based on their worst three things as he's over eighteen he received a discretionary sense and he received a thirty year sentence and so he cannot show prejudice i just based on on that and he can say it's prejudice under marrow of this crime as you have that unity set to see if at the stage whether he has shown that he's prejudiced under miller and the the answer is no because the th amendment fire i mean this crater has the opportunity to see has he shown prejudiced esche that the deniers are there as improper and the answer is no because he cannot show any prejudice under ha it seems to me we're putting these reason a catch twenty two types of situations to use a phrase that has a certain many a bit in actually i think he is in a situation where with all of because he says that he says under this kind of kid agrees and that they came after sensing the issue before this court as you're addressing those kind of things is this he is says unconstitutional under harris or thompson as it unconstitutional biracial you can look at this and saying on record and look at see if age was considered see and rehabilitation was presented to the credit whether the defendant had that opportunity and then the client was very clear that other factors that you can look at in this record regarding the juveniles chronological age at the time of the offense his family life juveniles degree of participation ability to deal with police and attorneys letting the lawyers of counsel yes now advocating our run sense over another but the fact is should be on at least under the homeland scenario should apply should this analysis be imposed on this young adult which we say shouldn't be done i mean you look at everything there was done at the sentencing and then if after looking at that if there are concerns then there is already in this case  being now i am struck and possibly dispositive in this case because of the fact that it also looked at the young adults of a fifty year discretionary sense the same procedure a posture deni consistent with your sometimes and the interesting mandatory sentence there is no mitigation considered and the most substantial factor was the fact that the defendant in that case was the lookout and the  clearly i read something that shocked the moral conscious according to the court's analysis because the same sentence to a lookout who wasn't even at the same as the same sense that a principle that and that a juvenile in that case that even