writing my name is heavy lynn lamb gross from the office of the state of health the founder representing depended upon and cameron for the purpose and policy behind the juvenile court act as the juvenile court shall have exclusive jurisdiction over minors under the age of eighteen unless a certain contention with of the automatic transfer statute remove them automatically to adult court to this as section five hundred twenty of the exclusive jurisdiction statute and the automatic transfer statute section five one thirty informed that when minors are charged with certain serious felonies they can be automatically placed in adult court as long as those charges are pending against the minor second five one thirty also tells us that at any time with those charges or discharge against the minor by operation of indictment or by operation of acquittal then the minor should be presumptively removed back to juvenile court or in the trial or for sentencing and mr ford's case he was sixteen years old and charged with first degree murder and he was indicted in the he was placed in the adult court system for prosecution but following his trial he was acquitted of the automatic transfer charge of first degree murder and convicted to only of second degree murder and not an automatic offense then prosecution must continue in juvenile court so for example we have a minor charge at sixteen with unlawful use of a weapon clearly not an automatic transfer offense if those were the charges brought against the minor he would be treated in juvenile court for prosecution and he would receive a juvenile court sentence unless the state moved under other conditions of the act the sentence in adult court now let's just look at say minor after the complaints and indictments issued charging that minor with aggravated battery w firearm for possessing that gun and firing back on another victim therefore the minor has an automatic transfer charge entering him to adult court in addition to his unlawful use for a weapon charges his juvenile charges that must be prosecuted much like  yes this court was very concerned that not only should the state get the benefit of their bargain but that the minor get the benefit of having those charges subsequently dismissed against them so can't out with a situation which occurs more than a trial situation of what we do how do we put the parties well what he was talking about is the presumption in those that there is one not two different terms that mean two different things and they were not quite clearly are specified by the first to the transfer charges specifically that must be charged against the minor to playing that charge and all the charges along with that come about as this court said is the automatic chance for charges pending and any other offices that are attached to that that arise out of the same incident notably mathis was a guilty plea situation much removing once again even right minors from the states absolute discretion in charging a minor adult prosecution now fifteen year olds can be automatically adult prosecuted and only three crimes remain so you know from the legislative history and from their own wor not again what happened to mr fort he was acquitted of the automatic transfer charge it was not pending against him it wasn't tethered to him it was an anchor to him so the state was required to move within ten days to treat him as an adult for sentencing and it did not do so overturned out of this law in all of this history and i think it's it's an indication that in showing that they don't mention any of this people the day's news which was that about a trial and people b p h because it didn't need to because we know what happens when  cameron's illegal sentence he is over twenty one years old he's already done two thirds of a lot of time to adult correctional facility from his eighteen year sentence and unlike the state argument there is no do over in the statu this court in miami i spelled out what it means to be a mandatory statute the statute has a requirement and it has a remedy and the state did not follow the requirement there for the round of these for paramount to have a juvenile sentance  was covered by paragraph eight because by definition it is an offense arising out of the specified as a first degree murder therefore under section c one and came no transfer back  based on the got there he was found not guilty of a first degree murder meaning that it wasn't intentional it wasn't knowing and if the rebel and he murder murder charges then in that situation i was he was found not guilty either  the armed robbery was not a predicate or the jury found that it was not there was no possible connection between the arm robbery and and the and the murder so that's a situation where there were relies on the fact that in king the first three murder charges pending at the time of the plea as well as the sentence what is pending is only significant as to subsection b because that section deals with where the prosecution takes only triggered after there has been a resolution and the issue of guilt after trial or pleat all the terminology and section c deals with what happened after a trial or plea the need for a hearing under section c is entirely overcharging and significantly in the context of second degree murder overcharging can never happen because the state has to prove every single element of first degree murder you know you argued that king  incident as unproven a charge first degree murder and an adult sentence can be imposed without a hearing and so if you compare king with this case i cite it was here we have a situation where intentionally or knowingly this regard to good mandated procedures and it's actually see to the contrary everyone had a good faith basis to conclude that a transfer back hearing was not required so we ask that under the and just briefly state as i'm necessarily complicating this issue the issue is that if there is an automatic transfer offense handing at trial or at sentencing and the minor can be prosecuted in adult court or sentenced an adult  greater charge then the minor should be sentenced under the juvenile court act were we have this problem is with tony and tony is a two one decision that's actually dicta in tony the minor was convicted of second degree murder and acquitted of first degree murder what happened there is the state moved for a hearing under the act and asked for the minor to be treated as an adult the tell me court was just mentioning that it doesn't seem necessary from this court's language and c transferable and the legislature intended them to be treated like a juvenile that's consistent with our legislative history we know behind the act to give the state less discretion mandatory discretion to put a minor in adult court and that has been forfeited can you push your argument in the context of why we should relax forfeiture why was he for two reasons one is that counsel was certainly ineffective for not objecting to his minor client being automatically sentence as an adult the state  move within ten days and they went right to a sentencing hearing thirty days later the minor was automatically sent as an adult the statute requires presented juveniles that thing clearly counsels ineffective for placing his minor clients outside the juvenile court act and placing him in the adult correctional system also this is plain there this is an area that was clear i believe clear hearings very clear it couldn't be more clear there were no charges pending against the mayor there's no jewelry and provision in plain problems i mean i believe if this is a substantial right he was treated like an adult or he's required by the juvenile court act to be treated like a minor and to be given all the benefits of the juvenile court that that certainly was not given to him certainly the record shows a clear air one followed with they were supposed to do no one objected the state the court didn't bother to even consider sentencing cameron has it as a minor and the state just kind of barrel through and everyone seemed to presume that he should get adult and right now certainly respected as he's sitting in adult prison where he's been since he was seventeen years old so he certainly prejudiced by his counsel's failure to act the state's failure to make this mandatory request as well as the trial court's failure to follow the statute clearly  written again this was not an onerous burden on him we should also point out that this court has noted that jurisdiction of a minor extinguishes at the age of twenty one through the juvenile court acting through this court's prior decision