the defendant armed himself with a uniquely dangerous weapon when a busy gas station on a summer night successfully shot two people in the back and continue shooting at others until he ran out of the woods or his gun jammed thus dependence convictions constitutional claim this is not this court's first opportunity to interpret article one section eleven for almost forty five years including as recently as two thousand and sixteen this court has explained that article one it's basing its holding on the specific factual circumstances of this case but in the final paragraph of the decision the appellate court discusses how it believes that article one section eleven hires the judiciary to have you know defendant was an adult as our society defines adulthood and his level of culpability was nowhere nearly on miller's level of culpability so turning first to his age defendant was eighteen years old and this court has considered juveniles to be those that are under eighteen the legislature considers juveniles to be those that are under eighteen and so that that line that our society  based on the characteristics of juveniles that make them a special class are the same ones upon which society makes lots of was for children dependent bills recognize that leon miller was not grounded in science at all but it was in the common sense widespread understanding the children are children when they're under eighteen and that's reflected in lots of laws like the juvenile court act and the special laws that we require for juvenile interrogations mental and the sexual component of the i know that that's not present here is the degree of participation the seriousness of the particular offender's crimes and specifically his level of participation in the criminal acts itself can support the  related to the supreme court or as i said our society has drawn a distinction between children and adults in many areas of the law and that and the supreme court has done this and drawn that line at eighteen even in the face of scientific literature there may be a legislative movement to treat young adult offenders differently most of that movement is for non serious crimes is not for crimes like on the side like the the one the defendant committed and it's important to remember what miller's foundational principles are dependent x states that he is not asking for a sea change from this court but that's precisely what he is asking for because that precedent does not exist for young adults whose characteristics even science is still not defined and so we don't know what characteristics young adults have based on under science or otherwise we just haven't defined them so class and the second line of president is that regarding individual sentencing with zimmer says north carolina which precludes capital punishment for any offender without an individualized here but eighteen year olds in many states and yet the death penalty and so the harshest available penalties for eighteen to twenty remains capital punishment and not like there's a mandatory life imprisonment as it was when miller was decided for juveniles and so neither strand of president i guess we often refer to the legislature and those of the investigating fact finding ours and we assume that they've taken all of this into generation moving the evolving science on brain development  challenges and then the remedies would would change depending on that the trick here in this case your honor is that there's been no factual development in the trial court and all the defendant says that he could not have presented any evidence on these issues because the sentence was mandatory that's simply not true leon miller is a perfect example of a case where the trial court had found that the defendant's mandatory sentence was just proportionate to the particular argument that his mandatory sentence violates article one section and then defendant very well could have done so here particularly where he was sentenced in two thousand and fourteen well after roper around the trilogy i'd like to turn to the science of leon and that to bennett asked this court to choose a this court to choose the point at which persons are fully mature when science itself can determine one twenty one is courts across the country and in fact most of the world and so we're asking that this court not substitute its judgment for that of a legislature particularly when any other line would be just as our bridge but eighteen its holdings on an extension of lots of president and a constant case that children are different children are different under the law in many circumstances as j t vs north carolina notes no science is necessary to know that children possess these qualities of youth and its attendant characteristics of course we still don't know what that means but what the scientific research does and whatever lack of evidentiary records there was in those cases case it was not the basis on which the court drafted categorical bars instead it was based on a mismatch we treat children differently in lots of areas but why not for sentencing and that was that was the legislative judgment that the court was concerned about and as for the national consensus yes there was a national consensus in favor of sentencing juveniles to manage for a life except that the court said again that's