good morning here please the court i am christina reeves and i represent the state of arizona in montgomery v louisiana the united states supreme court stated quote miller does not require states to really get sentences let alone convictions in every case where a juvenile offender receives manage torrie life without parole a state may remedy a miller violation by permitting juvenile homicide offenders to be considered for parole that's at page seven thirty six of the supreme court's opinion arizona has done exactly what the supreme court advised in montgomery contrary to the errors argument when the supreme court advised the states to do exactly as arizona has done the supreme court did not advise the states to do something which under clearly established federal law was unconstitutional the united states supreme court did not advise the states to violate the constitution arizona statute which allows for juvenile offenders like  at the time it was originally imposed it was not your honor or not it was not because it was a sentence that you couldn't give life with the opportunity for parole after twenty five years because arizona had don't have the power to grant pro they have the power to sentence defender and defendant to sentences which make them eligible for parole so he gave him a sentence which made him gave him a sense of life with the possibility of release after twenty five years at the in effect it was a life sentence at the time if miller had existed at that time then there would be an issue but miller did not and after miller was decided there isn't a supreme court remedy the situation by doing exactly as the supreme court said it should do and gummi of these louisiana by making juvenile offenders eligible for parole after they had served their twenty five years so tell me what i've looked at the department of corrections parole scheme which differs from many states do it assuming hypothetically that he had served just twenty five years how would he apply for parole i'm sorry i don't understand what received a life without possibility of release after twenty five year sentence like peer into that parole scheme and but is there a perl scheme i think well how does that work what does he do to take advantage of thirteen seven one six i don't know  answer to that question i don't know the mechanism for applying for parole and when two years when he becomes eligible for parole i don't know what mechanism will he apply to so if there isn't one then doesn't he not have the opportunity for parole if there is one i just don't know what that parole and i don't see that the department of corrections this problem gated any regulations or procedures they have would cover the situation so if that's the case he really doesn't have a meaningful opportunity for parole and in your briefing you just said you didn't take a position when it was raised by the other side you didn't take a position on whether such a mechanism exists or not which i found puzzling i'm sorry we didn't take a position as to whether or not exist a mechanism existed for him to apply for parole ye law he is eligible for parole but that's meaningless if he if there is no system for applying for it there is a system for applying for parole there is there was a system that was in it in effect before nine hundred ninety four that those defendants that were sentence prior to nine ninety four there were multiple for parole that mechanism still exist and how do you know you don't react because i'm as well but you just told us you don't know that i don't understand what you're saying so are you saying now that the system that existed before nine hundred ninety four is what is in fact in place now that mechanism still exist i don't know what the mechanism is but i know that there is a mechanism for him to become out for him to apply for parole let me ask you this is there is there separate board the considers these requests of them the board of clemenc that i don't know your honor but what i do know is that the state of arizona the core areas on the court of appeals you are is familiar with parole in arizona looked at the sentence and said there was a meaningful opportunity for release and there is nothing under clearly established federal law that would say that that was a incorrect to sit well if it's true right it's not clearly it's not an improper decision if it's true that there's a meaningful opportunity but if it's as a matter of fact they are making something up that doesn't exist in appeals didn't vera raise this issue in the amended petition and say essentially arizona has no process for seeking parole and you remember what the state of arizona answer to that allegation took no position on whether the arizona department of corrections lacks a mechanism for referring prisoners so and you can't tell us to do whether there's any mechanism for parole that we are  what i can tell you is that the supreme court said that the states could provide an opportunity for release for parole for a defendant and by that they would salt remedy a miller violation and that's exactly what his or arizona has done so  let's go back to the original sentencing date you apparently concede with the judge in giving that gave a life sentence is that where we are he gave a life sentence because there was no only legal sense which would be second degree murder if he was recent the only sentence he would receive if he was resounds today there is he would be entitled to exact same sentence that he now has which is like with the possibility released because even though in one thousand nine hundred five arizona did not have a for a was not available for him now for all is available for him so he would be able to be sentenced to life with the possibility of release after twenty five years that would be a constitutional sentence and that would be the only possible sentence that he could receive so what happens if in two years when his twenty five years are up he tries to apply for parole and there's no application that arizona has in existence and there's nothing he can do there's nothing that he can figure out to apply for parole what happens then and i assume he would bring and he would bring another petition p c r petition into the state court so in in two thousand and fourteen the pima count y superior court granted the petition for hate us for post conviction relief concluding his sentence was unconstitutional that was in two thousand and fourteen and so if they go under the sentence if that twenty five ninety three essentially cured the problem so you got a hiatus the proc or grants relief and says i'm going to resign so let's assume that they've gone to a recent and the next week  sentence was a vailable at the time under miller imago or under arizona law the trial court only had the authority to give a sentence that was authorized by law for the crime of conviction arizona vs the supreme court with the authority to correct the legal senses so if it was a situation where thirteen seventy seven sixteen had not passed and so the sentence was illegal or unconstitutional arizona best the unite the arizona supreme court with the authority to remedy that situation and most likely what the arizona supreme court would have done is exactly what the the supreme court advised the states to do in montgomery and make parole available for juvenile offenders like here which would have had the exact same  already has it would have taken the arizona supreme court to remedy the if the sons had remained illegal it would have been the arizona supreme court that had the authority to remedy that illegal se consideration of this case the courts hit the nail on the head first of all what montgomery said indictive was it is possible be a meaningful opportunity ronnie vera was a sixteen year old boy who was convicted of being an accomplice to his companion's burglary of a patio to steal a bicycle which is kind juvenile kind of thing in ronnie ran away now i've usually had tragic consequences but the sentencing judge at the time did not have the ability to give the kind of consideration that miller requires and certainly did not so that's never happened and even if we assume that arizona will get its act together to decide whether or not somebody's got parole it provided no no criteria it certainly did not require that the board consider age or immaturity or whether the defendant is one of the rear individuals who cannot be rehabilitated so even under the existing law there is no way arizona complies with milt but your client isn't hasn't done twenty five years yet is that right that's correct so we arizona could in the next two years develop a system that would comply with miller potentially it could so how is this issue right i mean it seems like we do need to be careful to make sure that we don't say anything here that precludes this if in two years he really doesn't have eligibility for parole but it seems like the court of appeal in arizona said that he that he by enacting thirteen seventy seven one six provided to vero with an opportunity for parole consistent with the meaningful opportunity for release contemplated by miller so maybe they're wrong maybe there is no such opportunity but how can we say that now when he isn't ready to apply anyway well and that's where the ex post facto violation comes into this the and this is  very narrow wish we would concede but the trial judge ordered that he be recent and as was pointed out at the time seven sixteen did not exist and the only option then for the judge was to craft a legal sense it's now the stage of his the state appealed that right so i mean if that if there had been a recent incident mediately then maybe we'd have a sentence to look at but we don't have a sentence to look at from re sentencing because the state appealed right and the state's position the result of that was that ronnie lost the ability to have the judge impose the sentence when that that order was was granted and but what about miller tells us that as soon as you make a miller claim you need to be resentenced and even if it's not after twenty five years yet that has to happen immediately what how do we know that from supreme court authority well what the supreme court said is that a child's how children are constitutionally different from adults for purposes of sentencing in light of their lack of maturity in underdeveloped sense of responsibility their susceptibility to negative influences et wasn't done at the time of sentencing when the trial judge ordered the reset and saying that it was a benefit to ronnie vera and one that complied with the constitution so the question then is just seven sixteen violate the ex post facto test which doesn't apply to events occurring before it's in act meant clearly it applied to the event of  the sentencing judge granting sentencing obit but the with arizona could always appeal the sentencing judge's ruling which they did and it with the arizona appellate court then made a ruling after the  frankly is is simply wrong no one has not appealing the court of appeals of arizona's opinion here are you know i'm not appealing anything you're kind of bound by that history or you know right that's correct that's what the the court found and what's wrong with that what's wrong with that is that the statute does not require any consideration of the fact that vera was a child when this occurred it doesn't require but that's what we'll know in two years right in two years we'll find out what happens when he tries to apply and whether they consider his youth and other characteristics well with all due respect i don't think we have to wait to see if the state corrects the problem at what point does the miller violation i mean he didn't have this consideration at sentencing and this state has made no showing that he ever will if i don't think montgomery is the enemy and well what montgomery wyoming statute and the wyoming parole laws very specifically require all of the things that miller requires and has repeated opportunities for tomorrow arizona amends thirteen seven one six to add the things that are in the wyoming statute will your client be any differently off than if they're done in the first place well he he he will be i guess be differently off i don't see how well he has the right to a legal sense today he's serving as judge supposed to phone he has never received a legal sen e he received no legal sense is a judge really pointed out initially and that's never been overturned so we has the right to a legal sentence and to have that come back to the arizona has construed the sentence thirteen seven one six now tells us that his sentence means he's eligible for parole now we can wonder about whether he will really have an meaningful opportunity for all and whether they'll consider the right things but we don't know that yet for your client because he still has two years before he can even try well he still doesn't have a legal sentence and it's like a cure with a stick i guess in the state just keep putting this off what if it we can't play what if's with the constitutional rights of children and miller i mean no one has a substantive decision so it was affective when ronnie vera  was racially sensitive plies to his original sentence and we cannot satisfy constitutional rights by saying well maybe the state will correct it sometime in the future if this sentence is to be legal then when he is sentenced there has to be a mechanism in place for that sentence to comply with miller and just saying well ok for parole after twenty five years when there's no mechanism in place when there's nothing that says anybody is ever going to consider his immaturity his youth the fact that that the psychologist appointed by the court for sentencing said this is a sixteen year old boy but he really functions more at the level of an early teenager that's all being ignored by the system and you know hoping that the court is not satisfied with saying well they might fix it well that's it but can you tell me more about the status i mean as it is i i confess i feel i looked at the regulations and looked at the website it doesn't seem to me that the parole board exists and function as a did pre one nine hundred ninety four is that true well you're you're the the board of executive clemency would hear a parole application by an inmate sentence before nine hundred ninety four now so your argument is that because there are no standards that govern it is pure discretionary that is actually clemency and not true parole well that was the very very sufficient very accurate argued there are no standards and on top of that the arizona courts have said we have no ability to regulate the parole or or the granting of parole that's strictly out of the hands of the courts all the courts can do is impose a sentence so as things stand very eighth amendment rights are not being complied with and his ex post facto rights have been violated because he's been given  he was given a new sentencing and the state has not done anything to comply with that other than to his detriment i mean the trouble with your ex post facto argument because everybody seems to agree wasn't eligible at all before so so maybe he's better off in which case there's no ex post facto violation even if it's his burden he still has the chance he's still a little bit better off i don't understand how having a burden gets you worse off than no not eligible at all he still was eligible for commutation but he still is now i mean the things other than parole like a clemency i don't under i don't believe that they've changed right whatever existed for clemency exists still that's like totally know if there's a more onerous system now that he has to go to get a real read a recommendation from the board and then the governor granted but even beyond that but that's completely aside from miller and you're sure but even beyond that under the nine hundred ninety five law if the government hit if the governor had commuted his sentence he would have been released from any supervision it would have been over under seven sixteen he's required to spend the rest of his life under parole supervision and that's that's a heavy burden that he would not have faced before regardless i think it's a i don't think he can have he can have a commutation now that would get him into the same place he could have been if he'd gotten commutation before no i do you know where how do we know that i don't remember that really being discussed in the briefs and i think we were talking about her all it is not discussed in the briefs and i would have to pull out the statute and i would be happy to submit that if i can just say in closing that this is a case that  or reasonable determination of the facts and what if there's no parole system and they say he has a meaningful opportunity for parole isn't that factual mistake the only reasonable determination of facts argument has not been made by the or in this court and was not made in by there in the system of arizona law they did they determine that arizona based on thirteen seventy seven sixteen offered me or i mean full opportunity for release so again i'm just mystified of what that is right now does he have an he has served his minimum calendar years of twenty five years so and it goes to the same board i don't know that your honor there are no further questions we asked at this court reversed the district court and deny the heaviest