fest two thousand and eleven j l whose case was designated an extended juvenile jurisdiction prosecution pled guilty to attempt first degree murder in exchange for juvenile sentence of the apartment of juvenile justice until her twenty first birthday have jurisdiction in order to overturn the case going to a j t or an order to modify their own supreme court role in the interest of justice for this minor so we do big knowledge as as the state's brief but you did was following the river revocation of her stay she was actually the twelve year sentence was actually imposed upon her and jurors challenging first that under the preponderance of the evidence standard that doesn't fall under the to the jurisdiction question i we don't have jurisdiction on the third issue as well as the first two and that is because the time to challenge the apprentice violation was before the  in congress to then say we have to restriction over thirty because that relates to the each a j designation which you agree we have no jurisdiction over i would argue otherwise i believe that the apprenticeship carries forward from the trial of your sentence but the apprentice sure although there would have been standing for her to raise a you know before before she pled guilty the fact that she didn't become fully right until she was actually given the twelve year sentence and  relates to the burden in subsection six the revocation hearing from which she did appeal this court does have jurisdiction to address just the burden that's why i included in my brief a reference to revocation proceedings clear that that has no merit and likewise this court does not have jurisdiction to address that issue because it might be basically she's raising two i'm sorry two claims in this brief one preponderance yes that was my understanding of her argument if i'm incorrect about that i certainly agree with this court that if all she is raising under prend is a challenge the designation m i takes care of that in this court doesn't have jurisdiction to consider that because she never appealed from her plea all right so you're not sure what she sees you know i am sure what she's raising or at least my understanding is it's kind of a chill drama tack under finding beyond reasonable doubt that the minor actually committed the new right and that's that's what happened in the revocation hearing we had to prove by a preponderance without a jury you have that she committed the offense that subsection six that's the section that she is understanding of it because she is attacking the revocation proceedings or to the extent that she is attacking the revocation today but that's the only issue that she presents at this court has jurisdiction over and we would submit that the decision in ruling and cannot overrule an illinois supreme court decision and in fact responding here doesn't really present any additional arguments that would countermand either m i or of the wealth of case law that excepts that in revocation hearings that references the parents petry i powers is actually a reference to the juvenile courts powers below because we know that the juvenile court threw out the juvenile jurisdiction in a criminal prosecution or delinquency prosecution the juvenile court has a parent's petry i power to ensure the best interests of the mine are protected that portion of vincent case that she cites does not nor could it address this court's jurisdictional powers to hear appeals parents patry i power is not a means upon which this court can confer jurisdiction upon itself in fact the illinois supreme court as i mentioned in my response has discussed the parents a parent's petrea power in a number of cases and each the supreme court itself refused to invoke equitable powers in j t it refuses to even invoke its own exclusive supervisory authority to grant really this court cannot offer court act when that adult sentence is executed subsection six of the u j j states that each the minor c j status shall be terminated and it also states the ongoing jurisdiction over the minors case shall be assumed by the adult criminal court so it is arguable in this case that given the fact that this minor is now serving in dull time tense and the e j j itself says she is under the jurisdiction of the adult criminal court it could be argued it could be arguing that she meets the criteria for a post conviction petition now that is an entirely novel issue it hasn't been presented to this court to my knowledge but that is released on parole in september because she violated her juvenile sentence she violated her juvenile parole by committing a new offense the e j statute says that the court shall upon finding that she violated her juvenile persisted in her plea absolutely or would have been if you're if she had the right absolutely every decide whether or not absolutely offense it absolutely we would have to prove all the elements beyond a reasonable doubt  we would have had to prove if defendant had wanted a jury trial all of the elements beyond a reasonable doubt in a jury trial all of the requirements of a pretty would have been met at that point she would have been sentenced to a twelve year term which was within the range of a murder and there would have been no kind of violation because there were did no fact that wasn't proven at trial that somehow elevated the attempt murder sentence for these reasons your honor and those expressed in our brief we would ask this court affirm the judgment of the juvenile court below thank you  argument my argument is that alley and actually change is the reason why we even get to a hearing on a preponderance standard is because illinois supreme court basically found that it really doesn't matter what happens at sentencing it doesn't matter what happens if a guilt expanded how we look at the concept of a crime day it's not just for emily what happens post sentencing is the effect of what happens and the effect of this hearing was to give this minor a twelve year sentence and department of  minor right to test whether or not she should have a twelve year sent by testing the evidence or the charges that were armed robbery home invasion whatever else that she did she you both for a very interesting issue