they could withdraw their motion and then filing again either like i did with child and file again i mean i think when you look at the language of the statute the intent of the legislature behind it just yet and the potential consequences i think raw and refile because for the for the body of the minor the effect would be exactly the same as what occurred here had a withdraw to refile yes i remember that i mean this the burden is so low on the state when i have to do is show probable cause i understand that but that doesn't really answer my question we're talking about i mean you can boil this whole case down to mandatory or directory and there are all these different standards that we are to apply and i think what we're asking you this point if the best fact that your client has experienced in this case could have did it she through the simple use of a withdraw the filing how is it really change the circumstances know that it can also be given a directory instruction but also in this statute the legislature used the word may at the beginning when talking about the state state's filing of this if it doesn't nation here in the contest between the talk about when we look to whether something is mandatory or direct what prejudice occurred as far as the actual probable cause hearing i'm the prejudice here is that markey now has a twenty three year adult sent all of the probable cause hearing is that at the end the judge is making this huge a designation that it's not allowed by the statute to may i mean after the thirty or sixty days brands the status of the court sorry is without exceeds the statutory power to act in boy and i'd argue that that's exactly what happened here it's also like when a juvenile is transferred to the adult court yet found guilty of a lesser offense that's not transferable at that point the state case that would say th this thirty or sixty day went to what was the purpose and what we do know the intent of legislators purpose in the j c a because there's a purpose and policy statement at the front of that and that basically nods that juvenile parts you know are about minor it's not about states convenience it says that the purposes for tech community impose countability for violations of the law and have that do not have that limited window accomplish that purpose they also they also do have a purpose in policy that discusses the duration of the proceedings it says lose that type of protection and be subject to the possibility of an adult so it's really the question the justice thomas just asked you this one you didn't answer because you moved into the purpose or the intent of the juvenile court without ever answering the question he asked which was what was the purpose of this thirty or sixty day window and i'm sure he certainly i would appreciate answer to that question the but we don't have anything specifically in the statute that says the purpose of this deadline is best i think it does dovetail with the of kind of idea and i think the reason that there's this thirty and sixty day deadline is to say you know what state if you're going to ask for this additional adult sentence you know in adult prison in adult court that you need to do this quickly because we can't just have this idea this potentially huge sentence hanging over the lin that that's because this has to be filed after a transfer motion is going to be filed if that is something that the state is seeking so if this would if there were going to be a limit on the c j then that would also interfere with state's ability to try to transfer the juvenile but i mean also this the sixteen thirty day language is really really important here because you know it's just that there's only one continuance contemplate of a legislature here you know they cases were about you know what happens when the minors transferred to adult court but that what was the length of the language it let it now yesterday it did have a negative and that you know obviously that's different than the  it's the that the state is filing this motion yet they're not ready to litigate it you know and they're filing it and no one really knows if it's mandatory or if it's directory and that's a big for it's concerned about the minor adult court it's it's just a different family over twenty six straight and than than what we have here and for the state to not be able to prove probable cause which they can do by school records and presumably that the way could have been at least conceived of as a benefit to the minor at that particular time which may well have been the reason why he minders attorney acquiesced in agreed to the continuance and so what you're doing here is saying that really in the future your position is that because speed is so essential and in your view you're going to elevate be over the the proper investigation and as you yourself pointed out the consequences of the state media which you have described as a very low burden at the hearing may be very adverse to the juvenile court responds if the state is told that this is absolutely mandatory and file it and proceed or you'll lose it they may file it proceed and the result may be very very negative for many many many juvenile respondents don't really i actually dock your honor because when you look at the words of the statute it says that the hearing really has to be commenced and so that's the first half of the hearing the first half is with the states to prove statute does say that he should be conducted between thirty and sixty days after fi if we accept here your theory here and then how we deal with it if minors return is standing up and saying no no no don't continue what we're ready for doing today would that be different outcome it would be a different outcome because i think what's important mean i think what it boils down to here is how we're how this court would read the statute in and of itself is the statute being read as mandatory or directory and here the people contend that it would be rad directory for several reasons one  questions not in conjunction i mean if you if you there's several things that this court can look at one is the negative language to whether or not something the statute in of itself prescribes a certain result that needs to occur by way of example i can check champ mathis is a prejudice not because as court is aware that if the legislature wanted to impose a deadline they could have done so i actually have written down exactly what you said what is there prejudice do we look at it th the hearing within thirty days or a fine good by sixty days what's the point of all just to give them a little well it's to make sure that the child courts on the the right track that if the parties are ready for their hearing and it should be happening within thirty to sixty  there's nothing in the statute that says unless legislature didn't write the statute that unless the hearing is held within sixty days the court shall not be able to designate respond to eligible for e j well your position is if you look at the cases the prejudice  mine respondent had the hearing the trial court heard the evidence and doesn't even the data eligible as such has nothing to do with whether or not the time limit the scope of law another reason that this court can look at the statute and determine somehow an air for those reasons that people contend the negative language to the fact that legislature can prescribe prescribe or result within the statute if it wants to that there is no prejudice and the fact that the legislature then in turn intended  be i just thought of point out the negative language is only one factor that courts consider to determine whether such a predatory or rectory you know also looks at legislative intent which you look at the entire statute the nature of the potential consequences  also prejudiced and looking at prejudice keep in mind that this could the minor could potentially be sitting in detention during the pendency of this year jake i mean that the speed that this hearing is commenced is important and