eighteen year old inmate in the department of corrections who brings a subpoena for a second transfer of his juvenile case to criminal court which resulted in his being found guilty and about his trial of an armed robbery with a firearm of the proceedings in pure recount in context of a discretionary that's only a prosperous two year range of a teenager up to fifteen years automatically transferred under this statute to the earlier parts of the statute that we have in this case parts water parts stream and i think this is rather extreme for someone who's thirteen they have to do twenty one hears for an offense that if you know the other here up to the court for the person's investigation indicates that was completely right even though he had been that i am people i don't know he wasn't required to do that but i'll tell you i was shocked that mueller so the case i would not require promotion one that is in line with what you're just speaking about he's also talking about in his experience which is also not something that he allowed the parties to comment or address amongst my peers in the juvenile department of justice will be a program that nineteen another strange comment because what does it have to do other than well i don't think nineteen is old enough for this particular minor even though that's a six year real time sentence counting credit back to the minimum for the classics in the fifteen year arms and handsome and discretionary transfer stet you specifically requires a juvenile judge to consider whether the security of the public requires sentencing under chapter five of me on no in all of which are distinguishable from this case because they involve either a mandatory life sentence or death sentence which was imposed on a minor the list quarter of course is very well  would submit that they did at the time they did the the transfer stations because in the transfer stare jesus is sitting here talking about using the criminal code and so on i believe that they do consider that at the time and we also have what hasn't been discussed here the second district court in the harmon recently held that sensing a minor to an adult since it includes the mandatory firearm in his mind is constitutional so that's decided by the appellate court defendant wouldn't participate adequately in these programs even if there were programs that were available given his history a part of what was provided was a programming front was provided by a probation officer who had written report himself on all the available programs throughout the state including residential only facilities for juveniles and such and of recall and so it's not just specific to a particular localhost statewide which facilities and what programs were judge was reviewing a report from the state of illinois he considered that if you want to consider that even if he considered incorrectly all right but if we're going outside the record when you start pulling things out everywhere then becomes a jump on the let's find your reporting world just as this says that in everything and of course this is a court review is is i've been reminded in the past play of the justices that we only stick to the record in the trial or it's completely different of the fact that it's in our state court is that in iowa on up the court specifically indicated that the legislature had recently changed the iowa laws that quote our legislature has already thing coming up with the near future that our supreme court may actually say something along those lines because that's pretty much what they're going to determine this is where those mandatory minimums are are allowed and of course legislature certainly has the prerogative  lot to change these statutes to allow for that but at this point they haven't seen fit to do so you think that  case potentially you know at least in part around saying well you know that certainly if we're dealing with a mandatory minimum sentence period that you don't go that he certainly could control that at least in the sentencing aspect of this particular case court would find that this question needs to be left with judges who are sentencing minors only means that it's not a mandatory situation so if you do have a minor  trying to get ahead of the curve here and apply some of the common sense approaches that all the noise should not that we should stay behind the times and not recognize the common sense realities that the united states supreme court has taught us time and time again should normally be asking for something over sex but since you have to go twenty years over sixty will stick with the twenty one year sentence i mean there was a lot of opportunity we came up pretty harsh penalty without transferring him to he