additionally honors mr holm i would request this court adopt a set of factors or guidelines and determining what constitutes a miller hearing for both the purposes of the trial court and the reviewing quirks your hon vs alabama has established that courts must consider its use and its attendant circumstances as a constitutionally significant factor in mitigation but what does it mean to consider you and its attendant circumstances and in fact illinois legislature has recently adopted a set of factors to be considered for current juvenile anders and prospective or prospective if you can islanders but for teenagers like mr hohmann who follow the side of this but how much more the adoption of the miller factors would have back to early in this case where the facts provide a clear framework for everyone involved in the judicial process not just the trial  considered you in a way that isn't why the whole in miller vs alabama it's probably unlikely and in this case it did not occur but that doesn't mean that oppression a trial attorney or trial court would not have presented evidence that it was but consider that miller that miller directly implicated some illinois and i think juvenile sentencing statutes and found them to be unconstitutional and also consider that mr holmes was not considered to be a juvenile at the time he was sentenced in the eyes of the law and nine hundred eighty one he was actually an adult just as fifteen sixteen and seventeen year olds were up until just a very few years ago and it was only under miller that we would actually consider  holmes to be a juvenile so it's highly unlikely even knowing that illinois has been a progressive state that that necessarily meant that the trial court would have considered mr hohmann and juvenile yet miller was tell us based on scientific research and brain development the seventeen year old is certainly not an adult even though the eyes of the law consider him to besides i time more importantly in this particular case regardless of what i would have said in terms of statutes or whether they were progressive or not in this particular case mr hohmann did not receive an adequate number here in the procedure itself was faulty because youth was not consider looks like for example there was certainly nothing in the common law at the time that would have told the trial court to consider mr homeland's lack of maturity based on the scientific research that we now know exists or his inability to decide assist with his defense or to negotiate the state and as your on a pointed out some of these factors were certainly already available in the state did make that argument but you know in arguing that youth was something the chocolate's considered the state certainly wanted to one or two cases that existed through the common law but to suggest that youth was considered in the same way that it is now is to ignore the holding of miller and other court throughout the common law maybe we can piece them together there is nothing this says all of these are required to be presented in a juvenile sentencing hearing they do not exist in one place and the adoption of these factors is crucial because it it creates consistency in the judicial process of the trial and the reviewing court level when trial puts understand exactly what is expected of them when time is understand exactly what is expected of them in order to about making up its own factors well this court because several options mr coleman would urge this court to simply adopt factors that are listed at home and as a definition for what it means to have a miller hearing a miller hearing means that a court must consider these factors in order to be constitutional in these factors include things like the ontological the defender the accompli incompetency associated with you the is why it needs to have a miller hearing here are the factors and this is the baseline they or should consider in order to institute miller versus alabama other courts have done that minnesota for example iowa and othe states certainly are adding these two already existing legislation if we looked at indiana for example who chose not to adopt the miller factors they didn't do so because those already existed but they recognize that this was sort of the truck or did that but this would impose no more on the trial court than this court imposes when they discuss any number of factors in mitigation that are outside the statutory factors the state is pointing to a case for example i think it's the sixt court had already recognized that miller vs alabama was retroactive and was providing guidance on how the miller hearing should be carried out but montgomery should not affect this analysis and that mongomery simply circumstances must be considered by the trial court and both courts just in both decisions discuss what those what those circumstances need a mr home is simply asking this court to recognize those more nothing about those factors that talk about juveniles are less culpable concrete guidance is necessary and we can see that because miller only applies to juveniles that are being sentenced to very long sentences or natural life and the problem without providing guidance the problem with the state's argument is that it runs the very real restlessness inherent become arbitrary capricious how one understands you without more guidance is heavily dependent on personal experience and common sense and before we require someone to die in prison especially teenagers or it's an act it's need to be guided by more than that consider that if in one part of the state we have a trial where this whole being merely need to consider you and then advocate an advocate at that trial makes a general plea for mercy like the one that occurred  essentially says look we really don't want to send the shah into prison for the rest of his life but doesn't discuss whether he's less culpable than his adult counterpart that doesn't discuss his intellectual or mental health abilities or any of the other client was guilty by accountability like mr holman was here so he's naturally less culpable because of accountability and because he's a juvenile and knows all of these reasons and then he too receives a sentence what do we do with the significant varying factors that by the time he was eighteen he who the the backgrounders three murders if they can one attempted murder by the time it was eighteen years old there there was there were certainly aggravating factors there were bad facts and mr holman is not here to argue otherwise the problem is that mr holman never received that adequate procedure before sentencing him to not alive and perhaps i counsel adequately presented evidence about his years and he adequately outlined that mr coleman was mildly mentally retarded that he had learning disabilities that he was being led by an adult counterpart and  here my question is it's more of a semantical one right heat that the trial court indicates that there are no factors or medication then could that also mean isn't it logical to interpret that also the main not that he didn't consider any factors in unlike other factors for perhaps the trial court might not consider it to be that strong youth is just what he did it was a factor in mitigation we also know based on the evidence that was presented at the trial in the state's arguments that there was no evidence presented be able to discuss what his juvenile status looked like and we certainly have the facts we have reports from psychologists we have psychologists now that exam in those in light of what we know in modern science what what did it mean that that he had this mild mental retardation coupled with his lack of maturity as a juvenile does that mean he was truly in corrigible or can he be rehabilitated and in this case where he's been for forty years we also have his long history to determine whether or not he really was one of those truly rare premised on the imposition of individualized had been saying for juvenile offenders something practice at issue in miller was mandatory life without parole sentencing and what miller does is precludes legislators from enacting statutes that mandator impose life without parole said this as on juvenile offenders and so it imposes an individualized such a thing requirement similar to the capital sentencing requirements that this court has applied in illinois before and the review processes will be similar in that the questions are whether the trial court considered the factors and in mitigation those include you as attending characteristics and then the family background of the of under the social environment of the offender the mentality of the offender these are all factors that this court has outlined in their common law and there are factors that are a matter of constitutional imperative in illinois and there are factors that since for over a century this court has factor that they may have considered that goes just as karma is going around or about whether the council should have argued the mitigating qualities of youth or the fact that the court did not mention them as this court said and people be berton the fact that a court mentions a certain factor and here the court mentioned that he found no factors no statutory mitigating factors the fact that a court mentions a statutory factor it doesn't the juvenile sentencing procedure the fact that you are young and that they like a church that their habits are unformed unsettles that they can't that they're subsector negative peer pressures that they're they can't determination at the outset there will be a category of juveniles who the vast majority of juveniles your honour's are transiently and commit crimes as a result of transit immaturity and not irreparable corruption required man to some questions about monk omri speaking just for myself i find my camera difficult interesting just interesting case very interesting case both aspects of it  this is a principle that should be applied but actually there's a discussion about what miller means and what miller says i'm trying to be loose of my verbs at one point the argument is whether miller is a procedural or substantive new role and my comey says miller head is in fact a procedural liberal so what is the procedure that mongomery is recognizing and miller or say the procedure that is dictated is that youth is attending characteristics and the nature of the crime are considered as sentencing factors and the question is whether discretionary sentencing scheme and all the various states and every state has a different  the question is whether those themes require consideration of use its attendant characteristics and the nature of the crime rate set back a little and said we don't we're not asking courts to make express findings on the record what we're saying is that to implement the substance of your and t statement to make sure that this hearing was provided and for mandatory sentencing of course it was not provided and so the remedy that montgomery imposed in montgomery was that the defendant who was subject to a manage should receive the opportunity to show that he falls within the class of the founders for whom life is unconstitutional and here we're not talking about a mandatory scheme this to have the opportunity to show that he has you those characteristics of you that any parent knows that his family background the nature of his crime his role in his crime whether he was a principal or or an accomplice all of these factors that miller talks about whether he was fourteen or first the trial court was sentencing defend and under the illinois constitution we have to remember that and the only constitution requires that a court impose a sentence according to the seriousness of the offense offense and with the objective of rehabilitating the offender those two components of the own eye constitution are satisfied when the court considers all information relating to the offender and the effects and the court is required to consider those things but the fact that illinois requires courts to impose sentences according to both of those to the seriousness of the offense and the rebels have consentual of the offender is requiring courts to make a determination as to whether the offender's crime reflexive operable corruption or transit in the church to say the band of choice sentences violate not only the federal constitution but the state constitution no your honor because this court has said that the legislature before miller of the alabama this war has said that the legislature can make that determination because under the only constitution the legislature was allowed to at least say at the outset that that an offender could receive life without parole because the legislature could determine that there would be no rehabilitative potential for any of the offenders of course this court in leon miller step back a little and looked at the the more in illinois is it precluded the legislature from making these determinations at the outset and this court has said that the constitution affects both the legislature and this and the courts when they're sentencing but the question is whether the discretionary scheme pursuant to the illinois institution required consideration of these factors and because the only constitution does provide greater protection for all offenders when it comes to discretionary  extend that far to all offenders yes the u s supreme court in miller has come forth and said ok for all juveniles you must consider that is what we've always considered that was a discretionary sentencing illinois has never said that  concepts are not new they are they've been in our his law first over a century and that's why we treat juveniles differently those are the principles on which we treat juveniles differently  are going to remain and as part of that direction going forward you must consider these these things that miller outlined there's no me resist or to go forward and make that same determination because illinois direct appeal case we're just going to tell courts that you need to make sure that you look at these factors but again looking at these factors doesn't doesn't explain what review those four points that the illinois rights again were hired to look at the record and they considered everything in the record and determined as just as how it was pointed out that would be mitigating factors were insufficient to overcome the aggravating factors and that this person could not be which the juvenile could demonstrate that he belongs with a protected class jones at a virginia post montgomery decided that montgomery itself really only applies to manage  discretionary sentencing was across the country before miller and so for example the report says that from one thousand nine hundred sixty two to one thousand nine hundred one an average of two juvenile homicide offenders in the country and one i had a rate of one point four five per ten thousand youth even like that parole but that included mandatory life without parole sentences so the point your honor is that illinois has provided these provided the discretionary sentencing hearing the had the opportunity to present any evidence that was relevant to that determination the defendant chose not to present any evidence or the his counsel chose not to present evidence are different claims and those are but illinois law i never  discusses what that procedure might look like and again it references back to those miller actors and regardless of the illinois individual sentencing schemes and how that oversee gathered the question is really one of whether or not that arizona and again it was a case where someone was sentenced post miller in other words it was a discretionary natural life sentence because it occurred after miller and those are the only type of discretionary natural life sentences that can exist after  because the court minimized the relevance of the juvenile strobel childhood and who would conclude that this case sums up the result of defendant's family environment he became a double murderer at age sixteen so once again it requires more than the command that there be individualized that insane because certainly in states like arizona where that may not exist it existed post miller and yet the supreme court was still not satisfied and this is just one of numerous supervisory orders that are being issued point it is not binding precedent on this score the factors to ensure that the litigation stops here when trial courts are considering the facts that are outlined in miller we can be assured that that that hearing was constitutionally sound and those are the same factors that were referenced in miller the same factors that were referenced montgomery the state also wants to make the argument your business your home and received it out of the sentencing hearing because again that many of these actors have been recognized for over one hundred years in the us and the state the question isn't whether or not when we go through it individually find a case here case there that recognizes you or that the different infirmities associated with you whether those existed in the common law the question is whether or not the trial court actually consider it especially in light of the fact that they want to argue that mr holm was considered to be an adult at the time and then find facts they were argue based on his youth were viewed through the lens of miller and i think that we can see in this case that that did no harm when we when we read miller it tells us he because juveniles are less culpable than their adult counterpart that we essentially start with the the sentencing on the bottom and in then only after we've considered all of these infirmities of you is it and it circumstances we move up the scale towards national life when the rarest juvenile it's truly horrible and here we can see from the record that the opposite occurs then surely the argument started with mr hohmann should have been sentenced to the death penalty but we're discounting that sentence down to natural law because he was after all a juvenile state made the argument that but for this mistake of birth they would have given him a lethal dose of medicine in other words even though the fact that he was a juvenile was present and he even though these back certainly existed in in the common law to some extent not everything but some of the factors small problem i guess that these numbers occur very very rarely but the question is does that matter if it makes it easier in the sense that there will be fewer miller hearings this will come up very rarely mr hohmann i believe in his argue that he was one of the only juveniles at the time that was serving discretionary natural law but again he is still a juvenile that was sentenced to natural life so regardless of whether it's a single juvenile or it's  twenty in the state of illinois these are teenagers that have been sentenced to die in prison and it should be all about procedure before we sentence juveniles to natural life in prison we should be assured that the trial court adequately