this court should remain that instant case to the trial court to give mr harris an opportunity to make a record and show that his crime was not one never flags permanent that the supreme court as soon as it has suggested in harris by filing a post conviction petition nd as a matter of illinois law miller protections applied to are all harris discretionary a life sentence and rd as pretending to the facts in this case in his petition mr harris has alleged sufficient facts to demonstrate that as applied to him and natural life sentences i think the only conclusion is that a discretionary life sentences like in poland would also entitle mr harris to the same relief essentially i think when we when we think about how the illinois supreme court has incorporated incorporated miller protections the question is at a hearing there would be a determination for young adult like mr harris whether his brain twenty year olds say and their sixty well that is something that would be developed at a hearing and in evidence for your way the sentencing hearing depending on what the relief ultimately yes but why should th by filing a post conviction petition the success of one the trial court has the ability to look at it and all of that and really that that's all at this early stage this really need to say we cannot as a matter of law say that there is insufficient facts in this petition because we have we know that he was you know we know that you know by in corporate by pleading miller i year old so i think there is enough here to between the records between the law that he has cited to say his sta her i think the pleadings standard that we have at this early stage i think is showing everything that he needs to show so counsel what about but i think illinois has shown in several instances that the line is probably not drawn and eighteen but if it had and has recognize that the line probably is a little further out it will be that we should have and this group were probably drawn there why now do you think that they suggested anything different or was thompson maybe that door opened i think between if we go with the brain sciences brain science really says that into the mid twenty's the brain is developing and especially is developing in those parts of the brain that control the kinds of things that we're interested in  i'm not an or a biologist or brain scientist side i think that really speaks to the need to have an expert to speak about the tell us what the brain sciences and how it would apply to to somebody like mr hearers or to m somebody will likely draw the line and i think other countries have drawn the line that there's a good there are good reasons i think in our society to drive draw the line at twenty one because we have all laws we have what one of the of the new changes to law so if if if mr harris was convicted of this crime today he would actually have that opportunity after twenty years the last thing i don't think this would be one of those cases i think it's actually limited to you know what we would call a straight up murder not one with an egg where with it with an ak but i only point was that the legislature has now focused upon the age of twenty for that purpose which is an indication of certainly age range in the way they are looking at will we will look at sentences for offenders that are under twenty one dollars that committed murders without an aggravating factor so there is this notion that there is kind of a line that may be able to be drawn that's all that's the only reason i mention this right now and i think that's correct and i just want to say in addition that the line you know wherever  think includes mr harris at this point because he is in that sort of eighteen to twenty one year old bucket where i believe the illinois supreme court suggests that it isn't as applied question that that gives the defendant of the title meant to show how this brain science applies to his case in particular and i think there are parts of this which goes to the miller factor of pressure pressure outside pressure that young people are more prone to give way to then at the moment this did the rash decision that then there's the bar i was suddenly appears in his underwear and calls police and then the shots fall so that it's that type of not future what will be the big appears and in order to complete the air they act rationally or irrationally i'm thinking i know someone mean i i think ultimately what this brings us back to is the need for somebody with some knowledge of brain scientists to actually make these connections and tell us whether this falls under and under developed brain or whether this is just an adult brain functioning as an adult would think really it's that it's fact finding that truck forward doing that at the appellate level without a more developed record is really not give me a hearing to decide to do hers i don't think every single case has said argument because we know we know from whole men that there are sentencing hearing set have occurred where the trial judge has actually made a sufficient inquiry and with the trial judge has really set this person falls into that in corrigible bucket that the supreme court has designated as the person that is the worst of the worst and holdman was one of those that where i think eight murders in the background and then the judge may think we're really into his asian you was actually seventeen and and the and the court said discretionary mandatory doesn't really matter this was a fair finding so it's not everybody but i and i don't know but the numbers are but again the question is what happened at a harris a sentencing hearing and as applied to her harris should you have the opportunity to fill out this record and all the judge said in this particular case was you were young and i want to say that the fact that she's the you were twenty i believe she said and then it was almost like well you're all of the end when you read the mother's pleas she does not say and please give him she just says please spare his life don't don't execute him so we kind of know that that was the center of that hearing so out some serious foundational analytical flaws in the defense argument the defendant says that he's in the right forum and says that because of that he should be given a chance because miller tries to adult discretion or sometimes is none of those are correct as a matter of law now he may be in the right forum but being in the forum isn't enough under a host of issues hearing act two would stand the decision he talks about the lack of discretion he talks about sort of the the lack of any statutory consideration of age or mitigation her attendant circumstances i don't think that now at this point house really the judge was not forced to such and some to life is the only alternative the judge had the entire range of twenty to sixty and could have sentenced him to life in this case because the presence and it isn't disputed that the presence of an aggravating factor but there was tonight in the d m the decision yes ok sell but in this case you've agreed and and the army and tory but again double murder and you're agreeing to today that miller applies to adult discretionary sentences thompson and here as never actually held that miller applies to adults under either the th amendment or the proportion of penalties they just those those decisions just said that these defendants are not or close to right from bringing their claims so since a defendant is not foreclose from bringing a claim as a matter of law under the portion of penalties clause in and again words travelling from the decision what he has proven alleged but it seems that the supreme court is suggesting that it don't defendants can't just point to their age there is no presumption that the brain science is going to since is isn't a mandatory life case you wouldn't agree to it here and the reason we can't agree to it here because no us supreme court and no illinois supreme court has suggested that an adult receiving a discretionary life did not allow for didn't send it back or nd stage which had already heard the line he had said that that was really the only thing that was holding them up ok so so one of the reasons that we asked to send it back again for another yardage under a mandatory life sentence good didn't they say that and they said the correct forum would be in a post to see and they said one more thing this is a white house still sitting there if you have the benefit of here because neither hare and i know here by now i'm here on and on neither thomson nor harris was ever given the opportunity to plead a claim under thompson and harris it was the pleading stage that we were concerned about because when we go to a hearing the pleading stage is over we know what is the defendant's allegations we know how to marshal a defense against that we need that pleading stage and the pleading stage is crucial when adults are concerned because there isn't that presumption that the brain science is going to apply to them there any pleading tell me if i'm wrong is there any pleading in williams or willis that ever pled that in their particular case that brain science indicated that they need not have not not with respect to those individual circumstances because when we when we take a look at harris in particular thompson is a little bit in the cross over it a little bit more harris gives us a little bit more in depth fuel for the supreme court may expect again we're all looking through a crystal ball here a little bit because all  supreme court said in harris and thompson was they're not the defendants are not necessarily for close neither said there is such a claim neither said that these two defendants can show it but what harris  is number one we are not going to allow age alone to be the defining characteristic scream four hundred percent rejected that they said it does not apply with equal force that presumption that miller provides for for juveniles heris also explained that because this is an as applied challenge these adult defendants would be expected to show how their own individual circumstances a scale blish that miller principles would apply to them now taking that plane which they at leads me to believe that what the supreme court is is that an adult has to plead and then later prove to get relief that they are maturity their physical characteristics their home life whatever it may be that has put them in the same classification as individuals who are juveniles and those presumed says suffer from the same cognitive impulse control all of the attendant issues that miller and the scientific research has disclosed and that is one of the reasons why we are suggesting that the court below rightly denied leave to file in this case because this petition that we got from the defendant only alleges that he's twenty he should be given the benefit of this ruling in miller because of his young age the brain science applies to him with equal force and therefore he should be given quote unquote the opportunity to try to marshal some x her testimony but so if this were a mandatory life sentence would you be agreeing to  i have to say not necessarily because we look at every case individually ok and we should look at this one individually should we be absolutely absolutely and i think that we have an alternative argument to assuming that you are assuming that you believe that we can take from here us and trade it with all of the shoes on along that's come out post miller including buffer including holeman which again we dispute as a matter of law that that harris went that far but even assuming if it did this defendant's discretionary sentence here given what we know that was before the circuit court there is nothing in this record nothing in the lengthy sentencing hearing that occurred to indicate that this defendant suffers from any cognitive or maturity deficits whatsoever culpable of any criminal defendant he was a lookout he was part of a game that was undergoing an intern the scene again more of this this and he was scooped up very quickly to be a lookout  and he also has significant mitigation in his background with respect to his appearance in the way he was raised i believe he was respect his grandmother and his mother may have been a drug addict and there was a significant amount of medication that would at least indicate that the or worse some significant deficit in both his upbringing and his maturity level and his culpability in the crime so looking at that case it stands in stark contrast to what we have here we have a twenty year old defendant he had been employed in the past he passed the th grade he had a good relationship with his mother and siblings he didn't get along with his father because his father was just straight but it's father was helping support him and rather than being impulsive asked this to penances the age of fourteen and maybe robbery strong arm robberies aggravated batteries know a lot of these cases were juvenile cases but they showed a eighteen they're going back they're getting nd stage they were found guilty of two murders and then this person who's you know everybody else is good now they're all going to be i don't our prison and then this this this legal support for the proposition that an adult receiving a discretionary life sentence is in any way offensive to our proportionate poultice clause or for that the th amendment for that matter so that's our initial argument as a matter of law you cannot show cause because there is no case not from our illinois supreme court that actually says that you're an adult but you get to claim the same protections as the juvenile even though you have a disc  that it doesn't think about how stupid this whole thing i'd snap to mention the whore it's as a loss of life i'm not even talking about it but the sheer stupidity and recklessness divvying up thirty dollars later it was vile and offensive that these crimes occur it does not mean however that defendant is less culpable simply because the yelled police and we have to also take a look at the evidence here because what we're doing is for snapshotting this with this wast that somehow defendant is impulsive and he's you because he's twenty what we also have to look at is that what defendant said to his friend after this crime that he shot the victim because the victim was trying to get away good going to alert the police rejected the person though that there was like two or three  where what defendant told him is consistent with the physical evidence because when we take a look at the autopsy result in this case for a tag word housekeep died from a gunshot to the back of his shoulder that traveled into his heart and he also had another gunshot in his side so that is not somebody who's been shot in the front that somebody has been shot as they're turning which is consistent with what defendant told willie anderson  remember defendant also told police that he wasn't the shooter but that was just him trying to indicate the crime for himself every piece of avon's here shows that he was the shooter and before he was the shooter he was holding a gun to the bartender's head so patricia bass could get money and before he committed this crime he carried a thirty eight caliber gun of course the victim was killed with thirty eight caliber bullets so this is not a defendant who like and then shoot somebody else to stop them from getting police and to dispute the defense perception that defendant is easily led he defended also told will that don't worry about the shooting it's all going to be fine don't worry about it as long as they don't catch excuse me the bitch defender was referring to patricia bass his cohort who was taking money out of the til nothing in support of this defendant being like a juvenile shows nothing about this defendant being less culpable or in any way having mitigating circumstances that would call into question the constitutional believe idiot for a life sentence just a few things on rebuttal st that the factual question so michael boyd the thirty four year old ringleader is received a sixty five year old sense and he's the one to be released  bass was i do i actually i was look her age i don't know that we know her age she was a girlfriend she got to thirty to thirty years and so did the michael mr walton whatever his last name was that's just in comparison to the life sentence that mr harris received i was i don't think we can really litigate who did what here and that's really not what the question i think what the state is generally trying to say here is they want to take the actual relief that the illinois supreme court just starting to did he use that discretion i think we have we have the the the sentencing hearing this is he did it in then the same with we ever be saying there was abuse of discretion if you was very this is and it discretion that takes into account the the young brain and i think at thirty there is no scientist that has said at thirty this is a young boy on some cases  twenty one a date in fact they go with that particular describe shamir in a period between eighteen and twenty one where they say we can either use juvenile sentencing or adult sentencing depend on the defendant that we have in front of us so i think that is a lot of support for their outlier somewhere i'm sure there are but is there a general general agreement that there is there is development and the science will back