tipulate a trial conviction of arm robbery by accountability of the juvenile who was sixteen years old at the time his sentence was enhanced by fifteen years due to a mandatory going to his from provision of the armed robbery statute this appeal deals primarily with a challenge to that gun and hands me as it applies to you know what happened the charges in this case of armed robbery by accountability arose from the armed robbery of a gas station in peoria and what happened what happened was that three boys robbed at a gas station my client mr kelly was not an arm in their problem he was sixteen years old  the time the young man who wielded the alleged weapon firearm was thirteen years old and there was another boy who i believe in the eleven year old who i don't believe was charged decided that it did and they hated the plea agreement in the belief that the minimum sentence once you had a fifteen year and has meant to the class sex offense minimum of six years was twenty one robbery statute is disproportionate and unconstitutional when applied to a juvenile by the second issue is whether the state constructively narrow the charge with it entered into state at the stipulated trial adequately prove that a firearm was used in this case now the first issue i raised as i just mentioned is whether the fifteen year old has middle of the arm robbery statute is a constitutionally disproportionate when applied to juveniles my argument relies heavily on the supreme court of united states recent decision and graham versus for that decision the supreme court underscored again that in our homicide juveniles the punishment for those juveniles must be tailored differently than the punishment for adults committing the same fast and that is because are considered to be less culpable and have a greater greater capacity for change and that is rehabilitation vs florida that makes the punishment disproportionate because the judge should be able to consider the unique need characteristics of juveniles in imposing a sentence in this case the parties agreed to an eight year cap originally when they entered the plea of guilty considering the catch and then subsequently at sentencing the parties including the state agreed that a six year sentence would be adequate while recognizing that the judge was likely to impose a fifteen year history when you consider the the the recombination for six years and the juveniles limited criminal history nonviolent twenty one year sentence that he guy is shocking and disproportionate to the offense that he committed under these principles we are asking the court to declare the going has meant as being disproportionate in this case as applied to from armed robbery with a firearm to arm robbery with a dangerous weapon the arm robbery with a firearm statute is the part of the statute that requires that fifteen year  the argument is that when the state agreed to the cap it constructively narrowed the indictment to robbery with a dangerous weapon and that would have been a valid sentence now  the constructive narrowing of the indictment does not require an express change of the indictment and if it power in similar circumstances in the supreme court of illinois at the moment they had their oral argument on march fifteenth and the state argued that it should be able to read to bargain away the mandatory going has  pretty factor therefore the state had to prove this factor beyond a reasonable doubt there's a statutory definition for firearms which states there in the a device designed to a reasonable doubt in addition to the court takes an objective approach as to whether it was proven that it does not depend on what the victim have been unable to do so because the state did not prove any of these elements required to show that the device was a fire under the statute therefore we are asking this if the juvenile the difference between juveniles and i'd also add is contained in the discussion in their case about the difference between juveniles and dolls is disregarded  really what would be the need for a juvenile system at all clearly we have a juvenile system because juveniles are different than a dog and graham underscores that point again the states and reading of grammar is much too narrow the discussion of the differences between juveniles and adults is very elaborate and illuminating in that case and it's not limited just to  the situation where a juvenile sense to life without parole regarding the question would be are constructive amendment constructive amendments many times are not intended that's why they are constructive amendments the supreme court of illinois in people versus henderson approved of a constructive inadvertant is what they call a constructive amendment that narrowed the charge in that case so the question of finest people versus henderson constructive amendments are are mostly a creature of the federal courts but the principle is constitutional and the united states supreme court  trial the state needs to prove the elements beyond a reasonable doubt this is an element that needed to be proved beyond a reasonable doubt because of the kind of the element that enhanced the possible sentence beyond statutory maximum therefore i if if this were to be remanded that would be an issue i believe that should be explored but i'm not going to can see that there was even enough for that because it may not be the know i've asked for the court to remember the case for the sentence and within the plea agreement that the parties