promise a promise to incarcerate a youth no matter what the nature and the circumstances are of a petition for violation as a court can see for the experts is that right bryce lone wolf was sentenced or at the original dispositional hearing seat a forty nine month term of probation for a crime vaguer vedic sexual abuse that was underneath the juvenile and since the act he was fifteen years of age when the crime was committed sixteen years of age at the time of the original which at the juvenile detention the court responded juvenile prison well unfortunately bryce to come back in from the court originally he did well for a period of months and then there was a letter of noncompliance filed by the probation officer in this matter these this letter of noncompliance did not suggest criminal activity but he was not following the terms of his probation he had missed schedule you're now suggesting and he had missed scheduled sex offender classes on and on about four or five occasions he was reprimanded by his probation officer he talked with our office and then he progressed and he did very well for a period of months unfortunately he came back to the court in march of this year in two thousand and six on an official petition and it was  back i told you what was going to happen to you if you came back what's the violation you're arguing that's the problem what i'm arguing your honor is that the court did not take a look at any statutory factors but just once again just told the youth that if he came back no matter what it's quite obvious that we we treat our youths more lenient and we believe this all of the most important part of that is rehabilitation and least restrictive environment the court not consider that at all at the dispositional hearing on the revocation counsel but many letters of recommendation that were brought to the court's attention these are letters of recommendation that came not from his grandmother or his mother or somebody like that that has an undying love for these it was a high school principal a junior high principal a drug and alcohol counselor a librarian that all had the same thing he was doing well in school he could come back and they all wanted him to come back argument just so i understand you started off keeping the promise and all of that if your argument is that the court him operated under the wrong legal authority and standard that's one thing but if you're arguing that no matter what he did he should have been  upon revocation in a court exceeding that in giving the thirty eight month term of incarceration in this case when clearly by statute any plain reading suggest that the maximum in this case could have then thirty six months so not only to thirty eight albeit it's only two months but it is a substantial right for you have an individual that is seventeen years of age at this time and has been removed from his community he sent to a different state away from his father he has not had a chance to grow as  you're going i think in this case i think you're going back over the same point don't don't don't look at what the judge says like what the judge does and the fact is even an adult setting the judge has some discretion at least post certain cases but the reality is he mentioned three different adults endurance here and you can read it in terms of what he did different ways but he clearly made those references and i think he's bound by and this i that incorporated or cross reference section it starts out saying two is the case of a juvenile who has been who is between eighteen and twenty years old but the use attempting to do is translate or cross reference terms isn't mr mr lone wolf council correct that the maximum would be the three thank you what we do know is in five zero three seven and if this case as the government concedes should stay within june we can see act what is to take a look at is the chapter seven gone like the chapter seven guidelines in this case come because of the the nature of the violations were not criminal in nature three to nine months because he did not commit another crime there more or less as a chapter seven says breaches of trust so it's three to nine months the court bought him back just passing the reference to three nine months   why rehabilitation would not be something that would be adequate in this case what is the sentence that you're looking for i would be looking for something that is guided by the chapter three guidelines somewhere within the three and iron range and i believe based on the language of the thirty seven b or some other are you going to be general proposition but they haven't talked about under eighteen year olds that's correct your honor i think as th specifically state that it's whether or not it's eighteen to twenty one or any other case certainly he's any other case because he's seventeen and by my reading of it which is a plain reading of it that the next move would be thirty six