was certain of her perceptions i from memories of this incident that changed and developed as she was sure the surveillance video footage from the previous day in which she  that now the offender had green eyes on but there's no evidence to suggest that you know it is that the state crew beyond a reasonable doubt that this the saloon person entered and december th as they e it's either because it was laid under the lease an ideal circumstances now in viewing the the video this jones just seemed to see them walk in the door miss jones did not pick up the pictures for the policeman to go search right they presented the four back to the widows and he asked the witness whether she could make an and they say to record it no it it is she picks up the guy who was there yesterday that doesn't mean that he's the same guy gets here today as it's going out here so so yeah but maybe whether it's correct or not we don't know you know anything about the software person that walked into that pharmacy and the nineteen was unreliable you know we've used up a lot of the time but from where we're really out of time so if you want to save a couple of minutes oh ok i would like to suggest a sentencing argument and so it was announced now classified as a class two or greater offense for purposes of the triggering the mandatory classic sentencing statute in the appellate court has recently considered this exact argument and people versus miles and reach the conclusion that i'm asking this court to reach that the defendant now case his prior really was an armed robbery that he committed or he was sixteen could now be used as a trigger sentencing but since the st time has passed and since your mom has served really dead and that he would have served if he were sentenced to the maximum class to range of seven years we're just asking this that this person was there three previous these are that we don't know but she meant that if i personally was there three days for the previous few days that doesn't mean that this mayhem is the only thing that you're saying is her testimony that i i don't know any case off the top of my head and it's usually the biggest factors are the witness could have been influenced by watching those videos from the previous day well the reason the police officers are aware of the videos from the previous day was because mr johnson told them that this defendant was in the store the day before this guy that ronnie was in the store the day before so  cases today but it is still a position that miles from me decided this really arguments that we make in our brief here in the keep to the question in this case is whether the defendant had two prior convictions two prior convictions for close to or greater of course but the judge when imposing sense can consider the defendant's age the time of the earlier convictions is a factor in mitigation but it doesn't alter the fact that it is a criminal conviction it's defined as a conviction under the statutes it's fits the definition of the condition it is not a juvenile literally cation and yet the matter is case views it as if it were a military treated as well because he was seventeen years old at the time of the crime in this case then he would be prosecuted today in a different manner and so we're going to give credence to the manner which we prosecutor today instead of the way it was done according to the law at the time occurred in this just inconsistent with really the notions over how we look at prior  suggest that we allow you the imposition of the sentence for the probation constituted the final conviction that occurred now obviously the defendant in there after filing his probation for and he was recent but he didn't change the actual data for conviction for purposes upon a person who is a who is under age eighteen the time is well he answered it as a condition it continues to be condition throughout purposes for the criminal history it's our position the miles case is one we decided we will seek again says that the additional have a few points with the states the reasonable doubt i came in in the answer i believe just griffin you asked whether there was any case law on prior acquaintances and how that would effects identification i just like to  legislature you know explicitly put that requirement in the language of the mandatory class accent it's in statute and those two question is whether someone has a prior offenses that was and so when she was seventeen when he was charged for every in two thousand and eleven it was i magically it was it was charged as an adult offense but in two thousand and fourteen at the end of two thousand and fourteen when this crime