marijuana in her system was sent to prison for six years eighty five percent and if that is restarting an offender to useful citizenship i don't know about it the seriousness of the offense i'd like to touch on that if the statute is per se guilty if the person has marijuana in their system then it implies that impairment is not a necessity if this girl was not impaired as the facts show according to an officer that was on the scene immediately then it was there's a chance it was an accident purely an accident if this was an exit and that means it was not deliberate if this was not deliberate it means it was not a serious offense just because it was not a serious fans does not mean there was not a serious result christian rolled the dice when she i smoked marijuana and got behind the wheel because of this first a law strict liability simply because of the presence of marijuana in her system i asked the this court to reverse the trial court and find that there were back extraordinary circumstances in this case reminds me of the time justice  stewart more or not a few i know when i see it when you bring up this case to to a lay person they immediately invoke god oh my god i can't believe this happened you know that child sixteen years old six years prison you know the facts show that she was an experienced driver she only had her license two weeks first time driving and i i i can speak from experience i have a daughter that's  when i asked for this court to understand the juvenile element and that's what it should have been considered in this case the state rights problem with the juvenile and that well age can be a mitigating factor in terms of sentencing in general age a lot is not the type of highly factor event not commonly associated with this type of event the saddest eyes the statutory extraordinary circumstances exemption she caused an accident because she simply had this in her system i believe i think a lot of kids don't even know that they can smoke pot on day one thirty days later they could be arrested with an aggravated d impaired he would have written all over the report he would it came he would have testified he would come into sentencing testified it would have been all over the map it not none of that happened because he testified she was not impaired but this is  in the state says this is not the type of highly unusual factor there is not a case you can't find a case that shows extraordinary circumstances at least i couldn't find one there was a trial court decision but this trial court in kristen's case did not want to hear about it and that was the lucas case judge the biggest decided this blanking on the name write it down but he just basically said hypoglycemia could have caused this accident could have been he was basically saying he blanked out it could have been a freak accident similar facts to this case we don't know from from what when you piece it together you have a road that was i mean in illinois for them to decide to tear up the road this road had to have been bad it was it was not marked and it's like i said the fans argument but it's it's a very big factor to be traveling on a road at night on mar then that should have been held that the fact that she first time she had been driving at night i guess she was sixteen you know i'm a firm believer that believe or that you can be a decent driver for a good five years after you get your license you can't teach someone when you're pro choice you know intersection that car over there he's going to be doing this you just you don't get that sense until you've had experience driving  say developments in psychology and brain science continue to show fundamental differences between juvenile in the coal mines they go on to say the case for retribution is not as strong with the minor as with an adult and impermissible double enhancement the state says well that's ok under south of our because the state can take i mean the court can take into account that you re of harm that's not what happened in this case the keys to the truck were just said  second way that the trial court erred claim that christie was impaired there's nothing in the record this says that you know that because the statute is a strict liability they can't have it both ways they can't say well because it was in your system you must be impaired it's just says it was in your system you're guilty it does not say he was impaired there were no witnesses that came forward seizures and  in the state's brief they go on to say that if the driver was sober there's them the driver was sober that he can't assume that it wasn't necessary for the conviction sentence he saw as i decided that it doesn't matter if the defendant knows that there was an eighty five percent and the person that defended would not get paid for the credit but he still is not addressed whether it's and it was one of the issues for a motion for reconsideration the trial the trial time for kristen actually came in and said he was ineffective he rendered ineffective assistance because he  didn't tell her about eighty five percent but if the court is to rely on reliable information you know we have to go back and say the court by she was handing out a sense where this girl would get many reasons why maybe save face maybe a lot of trial courts won't even consider argument for reconsideration thank you the second factor negra vacation beside make them less likely to consider potential punishment they have an inability to assess consequences i don't i don't believe that's anything new it's it's a given  correct it was a it was a curb your honor it was on mark and it was at night it's just you know we can't recreate the accident but since happen all the time it especially when you have  on marked roadway the court determined the trial court failed to find extraordinary circumstances because she couldn't find it in a case but  even considering the physical outlay of everything the fact because of the fog lights if you're conscious of what's going on if you're aware of what is happening you are you still count a perception of where your half of the boa ok and so i think he's saying now and maybe i misunderstood this member back but she was actually driving and left side of the road or she just crossed the road and the way the way they explained it was i don't think that there's an extraordinary circumstances here i don't think there's anything i think the trial just probably balanced everything i think the reason why the sixteen year old didn't get eight years ten years twelve or fourteen with this particular type of accident is