offense when he was charged with robbery and aggravated battery in the new twenty fourteen case which is the subject of this appeal the crux of isaiah's arguments is that pursuant to the case of and rejig up you'll want to juveniles prior admission is not knowing involuntary it is not sufficiently reliable to later use to establish that he is a habitual or violent juvenile offender the juvenile court act requires that for a juvenile admission to be considered knowing involuntary the record much sh well the crime didn't necessarily flow from that we itself because we could go hypothetically say that he had not been adjudicated delinquent in the twenty fourteen case evidence they still could have proven up a probation violation in which case he would have ended up in juvenile jail for a longer time out it's hypothetical question let me ask you a specific question what was the harm that he suffered as a result of this lack of the supposed lack of complete the procreative which i think the harm is the fact that he is a juvenile that did not have his due process rights when he made that admission just t wasn't titled as a juvenile to all the due process that an adult is entitled to and in fact because he is a juvenile it's important that the admonitions be script that scrupulously get into the juvenile because he has a lessened understanding of us legal right sure i mean he should have been told it in fact if this case hadn't even a reason he clearly there's very likely he could have had a probation revoked and been sentenced to juvenile prison for you know more flexibility for us in the in the juvenile courts when we cannot be assured of the reliability of the prior it managements that it was a voluntary and reliable fleet for a citizen purposes to t was concerned with you have to have jurisdiction to move to withdraw the plea this is a different case we're not asking we're not seeking to withdraw the admission of twenty thirteen we're just saying it was not sufficiently reliable on its own to use for the the consequences of the plea but so were not attacking those for say we're just looking at them and saying they were not sufficiently reliable to use for this collateral purpose which is a different issue th unconstitutional whatever term you want to use all the old those that he was not he didn't try to do that within thirty days you're saying the thirty day rule doesn't matter he can attack at the time because he's a juvenile appeal when a juvenile did not make out a knowing and voluntary admission because he was not given the had ammunition he was required to understand then that admission cannot be us for the later purpose of  matter i do want to point out an error in our brief during preparation for this argument is become clear that respondent need not have filed a post trial motion to preserve this issue for as such waiver does not apply in that context and i do apologize   is the same exact it would have the same exact effect in the instant case it's no different he is trying to attack collaterally and underlying prior to the cation even though he had the opportunity and the ability to previously discharge of a firearm were allegedly insufficient and were they insufficient no your honor the trial court in the instant case complied with the substantially complied with the requirement that you say what the ma your honor you responded yes respondent was seventeen years old at the time ok sixteen i believe he might have been sixteen at the time of the a t f a adjudication and then he was seventeen at the time he was deemed a habitual indeed violent juvenile offender under the h b o individual provisions juveniles received good conduct credit therefore he will if he's behaving in juvenile detention he will get out well before he is twenty one years old you will know what's going to happen and he was sentenced to a period of not freedom for almost three years if not his liberty has been taken away from however he is still in juvenile court respondent was advised that there would be no trial if he pleaded guilty i'm he would be giving up his right to confront witnesses against him and his right against self incrimination with respect to the penalty the respondent was told the exact sentence that he received he was told he would serve four months in the deal c with a bring back if he came back with a positive report he would only have to serve probation this is exactly albany came back with a negative report and told what would happen yes he was so can you really reasonably argue that if you know that he may have to serve twelve months at suffices for letting him know that he may have to serve three or four more years and you really make that  was represented by counsel during death leading during that period in addition the illinois supreme court has clearly up held the constitutionality of the issue and the v j o provisions under the eighth amendment and under the proportionate penalties clause this was in illinois supreme court's ruling in crosscut you'll know supreme court explicitly stated that it was legitimate for the legislature to conclude that a juvenile grand committed three serious offenses had benefited little from the rehabilitative measures of the juvenile court system never been any weighing in on the prejudiced effect it seems pretty clear from the few cases that there are timothy p m w p v that that this juvenile who think it was likely to commit some other crime so if he had known that he wouldn't feel guilt is that what you're suggesting it sounds like you are saying that had he known that team case was not knowing involuntary it was not a known waiver of known rights that he was doing in that case we don't know what he anticipated we do know that the case in which he's involved what seems to been a very spread the moment offense involved with others and again this is certainly showing a juvenile's peer group pressure impulsivity an awareness of plan for consequences again a juvenile when he's making this admission doesn't understand his legal rights no matter what he said he's a young man is just you know no i don't i don't mean to make to make light of it i'm just showing the impulsive nature of the offense from the trial is the kind of thing that juveniles often as brain science has shown about their limited ability to face the consequences of their actions which is why they are treated in the juvenile court system why they have an issue is given to them when they do plead guilty offenses need to be scrupulous so that they are not railroaded into something that's going to come back and have really dire consequences such as restricting their liberty to move about anywhere in the state of in this state until they're twenty one years old which is a very long time for a young man thank you very much