good morning both parties ready to proceed yes represent mr michael koeppen your honors we raised two arguments in this case st that the trial court erred in denying the motion to suppress and nd that michael's de facto life sentence was both unconstitutional and excessive on the st issue the trial court denied the suppression motion based on the a merge and see exception to the th amendment this exception applies only if there is a need for immediate action for the purpose of providing aid to persons or property and in this case they're just simply wasn't this need for a mergence action and that's shown by the police officers own actions in this case first there is this year amount of time officers waited approximately one hour from when they arrived at the apartment building the nd time before entering the individual units now other cases have found that the mergence the exception does not apply when officers wait for a much shorter time anywhere from ten to thirty minutes has been deemed too long because it undercuts the idea that there is an ongoing emergency and besides just the time the officers simply didn't act like this case was an emergency when they arrive at the partment they look in the windows they talk to the neighbor across the hall and they knock on michael's door and wait five to ten minutes for him to open the door take everyone out in the hall to talk to them and at one point michael says he's going to get sick so they take him outside and then officers call the station to start working on a warrant they find out it will take at least two hours to get that warrant then they huddle up and it's at that time they decide well now there's an emergency now we need to enter the apartment simply put this isn't typical behavior from police off officers in an emergency situation they were not acting as if they thought anyone was in mortal danger officers didn't ambulance there's no evidence they brought in medical supplies when they entered the apartment so really the officers behavior itself is the best indication that the emergency exception simply did not apply in this case turning turning to the nd issue michael's sixty three year defacto life sentence was unconstitutional under both the th amendment and the proportionate penalties cause now obviously michael was not a juvenile he was twenty years old when this at the time of the offense but it's important to note that we're not asking this court to make a ruling about every defendant between eighteen and twenty one years old and said we're making an as applied challenge for this individual defend so turning to the facts about michael himself it really starts with his horrific childhood he's born in a drug addict at a very young age his mother commits suicide and then his father remarries and michael's not even allowed to talk about his birth mother anymore is not allowed to process this very traumatic event in his early life and then michael sees his father abused his stepmother michael himself as very seriously abused he later is diagnosed with bipolar disorder develops substance abuse problems makes multiple suicide attempts and all the while his father's minimizing these problems michael's father is sort of treating it as fraudulent as a sign of weakness and ultimately this terrible upbringing it does more than just make michael a sympathetic figure it also affected his brain development scientific research tells us that abuse slows down brain development especially in the area of self control it makes the victim of abuse hypervigilance and prone to overreact to minor events and then we look at the psychological evaluation in this case and it says the same thing it says michael is suspicious and hyper vigilant he's easily triggered by even mild stressors perceive them as major events and ruminates on them for an extended period of time and then we look at the facts of this case and that's exactly what happened michael was jealous apparently that his girlfriend was talking to guys on facebook and he was mad that she was staying out so late at night and then he overreacts and events spiral out of control to the point where we get the tragic result that we have in this case  also affecting his brain development michael michael use drugs to self medicate to his mental health issues and substance abuse decreases one's capacity to evaluate and control behavior it makes people act impulsively makes them ignore future consequences and all of this reinforces the underlying tenants of miller which is that young people's miller of is based on the fact that young people's brains are not fully developed but what miller also tells us is that it's only the rare juvenile that's irretrievably deprived most mature out of lawbreaking as this neurological development continues and we see that in michael's case he's in jail for approximately two years from the time of the offense to sentencing and in that time he had zero incidents in jail his family multiple family members notice a change in his attitude he's off of drugs and then at sentencing he makes a very eloquent very remorseful statement and knowledge fusion and this again ties back to the psychological evaluation which says that michael has the capacity to change so in many ways he really exemplifies some of the underlying reasoning of miller now apart from these individual facts about michael there's also some general societal recognition that supports treating those under twenty one differently than older adults scientific research shows that brain development continues past eighteen continues  may mid twenty's and again as i said before brain development really is the heart of the miller rationale and as a society we know with that that's why we have traditional demarcations at the age of twenty one if you're under twenty one you're not allowed to buy alcohol to possess a gun without parental permission not eligible for mandatory classic sentencing and recently the legislature has amended the parole laws so that defendants who are under twenty one dollars at the time of the fence are now eligible for parole after serving twenty years so clearly the legislature sees defendants under twenty one dollars differently than older adult offenders unfortunately michael didn't qualify for that law based on when he was sentenced if you've been sentenced eleven months later he's actually eligible for m s r over forty years earlier than he currently is but but it's besides the legislature illinois courts to have applied the miller reasoning to defendants between eighteen and twenty one and notably in the recent case of people v rivera the state itself argued that youthful offenders are those who are under twenty one now while this court has never made that explicit holding in suggs this court did recognize that there is support for or extending treatment of young offenders past eighteen and suggs the defendant was twenty three sort really didn't apply but still this court recognized some of the things that we're talking about in this case so all of this is to say we're not asking this court to break new ground we're not asking this court to go out on the limb we're asking to recognize what's already been recognized by the legislature by scientific research and by other courts in the state and finally in making these arguments we're not denying that this was a serious and tragic case but that being said the de facto life sentence here was still unconstitutional as appl michael and even if not unconstitutional it was at least excessive for these reasons and all the reasons that we laid out in our brief so in conclusion michael respond next we ask this court to reverse the order denying the motion to suppress or alternatively to reduce the sentence or remain the case for news thank you counsel i just presented do you have any questions yes i do good morning counsel morning to the police an initially responded to a missing persons report correct eleven call of an emergency in progress all of the cases you cite in support of your argument involved emergency calls lomax involved a nine  how are any of these cases applicable to a missing person's report that is true i mean all the facts are slightly different and when we evaluate the emergency exception it is a value weighted on the totality of the circumstances but the things that come through those cases even though the facts are different is that this need for immediate action and the fact that officers waiting a certain amount of time undercuts that notion that that there is an ongoing emergency and so bad is what we are relying on those cases for well counsel did you do a national search for missing persons cases no your honor we we rely exclusively on illinois cases ok well there are two cases several cases found one of which was people versus rogers a supreme court of california case from two thousand and nine involving the application of this doctrine in a missing persons situation as well as the supreme court of thirty eight and the gist of those cases involved in a missing persons report but also talked about the circumstances under which this test should be applied in this situation wasn't the purpose of the initial response to do a well being check that as the police were advised  and forty that the mother couldn't contact her daughter since friday her car wasn't in the lot so the police had to do more investigation and they not at that point they did and  it was an invest obviously it was investigating a well being check however i'll go back to the point i made earlier once they get there they're not acting as if there's an immediate exactly how much time has passed before the reasonableness of an officer is belief that emergency existence determined by the entirety of the circumstances it's the term and at the time of the entry correct there  there's no bright line time no i agree with that and it is the totality of the circumstances test but the the the cases we've cited look at the time element as evidence that again undercuts this notion that there is a need the need that there is this ongoing emergency that that has to be taking care of and here you know it's much longer than those cases those cases again would tend to thirty minutes held to be too short of a time i mean here we're dealing with over an hour and again besides just the time what the officers are doing in that time what well they are investigating they're certainly not acting as if that there's any need for a media action well but at the time they entered they knew that maria had not been at work in two days that the defendant had lied about taking her to work at saturday night about going into work that he had lied to susan about it that her car at that nd time was in the parking lot the neighbor hadn't seen her that the defendant  gathered the information by then defendant had a history of violence against her then the defendant became i said he was high and sick on drugs and then he said he didn't know how many people were in the apartment it's a progression of the facts that lead up to their decision at that point to enter the apartment and it's at that point that the reasonable test is applied isn't that what cheryl tells us the  acting and how much time it took them to to take action i mean just to highlight a few of the factors that you mentioned you know the officers perhaps have reason to be suspicious based on some of michael's answers but the suspicion alone isn't the same as a need for a media action and that that is and i do have several other questions on a couple of the other aspects of your argument with respect to miller you have that knowledge this court's decision in point in fact  supreme court tells us we're wrong why should we not apply lapointe to this case while the other courts i think it's a st of all i think it's important to recognize we are doing it as applied challenge and and obviously every as applied challenges is going to be a little different based on the facts of dealing with a different defendant so i think  laws and some recent case law that has come out indicating that an as applied challenge especially on the proportionate penalties clause is permissible for a defendants between eighteen and under twenty one well regarding the as my challenge i mean none of the new scientific studies that you rely in in your brief was argued to the trial court where they no but and so the trial court did not have an opportunity to make any findings with respect to how that research applies to this defendant did it well the why the the scientific research and a lot of the underlying elements of miller are really echoed in the psychological value way ssion that is included in the record and was presented at sentencing and i think you know this is a very unusual case it's in most cases where we just have the p s i i that would that would be a valid a valid point but here we have so much more there's hundreds of pages of medical records there's a psychological evaluation and there's these very detailed letters from family members that really paints a vivid picture of what the of what michael underwent as a child so because of all of this and because it directly ties to that scientific research and to the reasoning of miller that there's enough here to present an as applied challenge and lastly i would just mention that you know the state has not disputed any of our scientific research and much of which has been cited by by other courts in this state  moving on for just a minute one more question when it was clear became clear from the evidence that the defendant brutally murdered maria  then entertain friends in his living room with her body in the bedroom did the court really have to make a finding that the defendant's conduct shows irretrievable depravity doesn't the act speak for itself well considering what the defendant did after the moore murder i mean this is i think it actually cuts both ways because they're they're not pleasant facts but he you know this isn't a brilliant master plan to conceal a homicide he he's not thinking about the future he's thinking about the moment thinking about you know getting drugs and hanging out with his friends and this i mean this is what an adolescent would be thinking about not the future consequences and not the what happened but just thinking about the moment in front of him so i believe that that actually in certain ways supports the notion that mr copeland was more akin to an adolescent then to an older adult offender and all of this done by of the circumstances and i covered that well i do have a couple of questions mr mccoy when the police were searching at the home they were searching for her were they not and not for a dead body did they not tell him they were going to search for a place where a body could be here that they were looking for her based upon this missing person's report on the closure and how do you come to the conclusion that they were looking for other things in the what to make sure no one else is in the apartment we're not challenging that also one other question with respect to the the  in need to be set out in this case because he was not eighteen or under correct well our argument is that it does need to be based on the circumstances of his very passionate argument in a case based upon a mental health issues is bipolar is drug use but that's not what miller tells us and that's not the point tells us correct that's not the particular holdings of those cases however i mean other cases have you know particularly the house case and some of the other cases we cite no reply brief that even those over eighteen the particular circumstances the particular their particular brain development may make them more kin to adolescents than older adults which is the argument we're making here right  in the gifts in case that you cite you rely on basically for the the mental health issues etc the facts in the gibson case were a little different than the facts here i mean you didn't even have somebody die in that case not that those injuries weren't extensive but that what those were a little different than the case that we have here where we have more rain who was murdered and then he tried to conceal the crime he's had ten prior incidents many of those incidents domestic battery against her so can't we distinguish that gets in case and if not why not obviously gibson as in every case is going to have factual distinctions i would point out that there have been other cases with murders in which you know the miller has been applied how specifically two people were murdered and just to answer some of the the other things you mentioned in your question st regarding that the ten prior incidents of domestic abuse so yes both occurred but really they can't be separated from his childhood i it actually says in the psychological evaluation that his chaotic childhood further contributed to his maladaptive manner of coping and his behavior mirrors many of his early experiences so i think it's diff to to separate that out and that again was i'll just say with with his actions after the murder i mean this isn't a master plan on on how to conceal a homicide sister well as a jail i mean i get everything you're saying i mean it was a horrible very sad case a horrible horrible upbringing but what point do we punish and what point do we try to rebuild it take you know we have to look at and as the trial court did we have to look at all of these factors correct absolutely but what miller and it's parag janine tell us is that what is the about rehabilitation for when people who do not have fully developed brains and fully and the consequences of that so when when do we have to to punish when does he have to take responsibility well you know at this point and even as as a legislator recognized and its recent amendment to the parole laws you know under twenty one it's different than older adults offenders so at this point and given all of the regarding michael you know rehabilitation is just so much more important than it would be for an older adult offender thank you very much mr a quite appreciate your time isn't this a situation that is before us that is very fluid you have the police who returns to the victim's house and seize the victim vehicle has returned they speak with the defendant notice he has experience a possible those seen event he doesn't know if anyone else is in the apartment then they enter why isn't this an immediate response by the well obviously you know the officers are talking to people and investigating the crime but they're never acting with you with this new media that something is happening i mean michael spoken to everyone is killed is the time to talk together call the station about exploring and then then decide to go and so it's it's it's it is fluid but it's still there's no immediate need ever in this case council but they hadn't been gone that long when they get back the car is back he lies about taking her to work well let me let me just go to this one here what other reason would make him and sure if anyone else was in the apartment he can see his two friends that are outside with him being talked to by other officers what what other reason would there be other than to suggest that the victim was in the understand that part but what i'm saying is that what what would make him sure someone else within the apartment i don't know of anything off the top of my head say that still doesn't gel in emergency in that i mean there's reasons to be suspicious of michael we're not denying that but again suspicion alone doesn't thank you the other questions i had were asked by other justices so thank you justice enough do you have any additional questions you know i didn't thank you just a shafik do you have any additional questions no thank you thank you thank you mr mccoy at the end of the police argument you will have an opportunity for at this time  tracy you may begin your argument maybe the court counsel but i home behalf of the people of the state of illinois as this court pointed out that the case the cases relied on by the defendant in regards to the st argument those are all nine hundred and eleven colors but i also wanted to know that in those cases when the police arrived they spoke to the nine hundred and eleven caller and the caller told the police everything fine they dispelled any reasons why an emergency what happened by that caller here susan is clearly adamant that her daughter's been missing for two days please go and look for her they have a relationship with the defendant where he physically abused her i am concerned also in those other cases cited by the defendant the police had already conducted searches in a lot of them like most like to searches before coming back and trying to find  more contraband such as such as in borders where they try to find a gun after any conducting searches so here clearly this is a brand new case with these officers this is an emergency an emergency phone call the crux of the defendant's argument basically is that the officers needed to eat it really act like an emergency happened once they got that initial nine hundred and eleven call but that is not the law and if that were the case officers would need to act like an emergency happens the moment and then when one call or a missing report is submitted to the police but the law clearly states that the officers must have a reasonable basis for determining whether an emergency exists at the time of entry the validity of the emergency and exception is not contingent on the length of the investigation or the time needed for the officers to gather information to reasonably conclude that an emergency exists as this course as this court noted this is a fluid situation that officers are acting on the information that there are that they're acquiring as they go and the initial phone call  susan the only information that the officer has given is that my daughter has been missing for two days and and the police were given her vehicle information they arrive at the apartment the vehicle is not there no one is answering it doesn't appear that anyone is there so the officer goes back and the mother calls again with more information providing more context and all this is building up susan tells the officer  she hasn't been to work that day the supervisor has called me a defendant has physically abused all these other facts so all the officers go back to conduct a while mr jack in response to this missing persons report they go there and they knock on the door and the defendant points out that a couple minutes while they're waiting a couple of minutes because the defendant is moving the body into a closet that's why the officers are waiting there minutes because the defense trying to conceal the body before opening the door defendant opens the door and they see another man sent behind the defendant to officers escort him on the south and of that building there and they begin questioning him and then another officer officer the hand stays behind with a couple that that were in the apartment with the defendant the defendant makes incriminating  statements and these aren't statements that are and big us he's stating you know what i just did a marijuana i just did crack there's something in the closet that could put me in jail for a long time he's stating that maria has gone into work now the officers explicitly tell the defendants we're here to check on maria we're here to conduct a wellness check is she in there and the defendant states no the officers tell him we know you're lying we've been told that she did not show up to work defendant states that they took an over together that morning but that doesn't explain why maria's vehicle is in that up apartment  parking lot of the of the apartment defendant states that he doesn't know who else is in the apartment besides his besides his two friends he looks like he's going to heave he looks like he's on drugs his eyes are rolling back  at that point another officer so concerned and has probably cause to believe that there's drugs in the apartment that he calls a superior and states we're here to conduct a war on this track but i'd like to get the ball  rolling on a kartik search warrant because it looks like it's a drug investigation and i'm pointing this out because even if the emergency aid doctor doesn't apply the inevitable discovery doctrine applies one hundred percent this is a textbook case of the end of old and never about discovery doctrine they did initiate a search warrant to just to search for drugs and that sets the ball rolling rolling for the independent investigation but nevertheless they state the main purpose here is to check on this victim to check on this person who we've been who's been missing for two days they go in after they can for the through office confer and they talk about it and the defendant makes a point to state that while they're not acting crazy they're not acting like it's an emergency these are trained professionals they're trained professionals to act calm under pressure if they're acting if they're yelling if they're at acting in a panic that the st the purpose of conducting an investigation these are trained professionals who can act in a calm reasonable manner when responding to calls  to emergency calls to missing person reports they go in and they're not looking for drugs the trial court found this they're not trying to look for cocaine paraphernalia there and they're trying to locate this missing daughter this missing teenager who who has a child who has not been seen for two months by her own mother they go out and they see that the bedroom door is closed because the defendant closed it they opened it check to see if marie is there she's not but guess what the closet door is also closed because the defendant closed it to hide the body they opened that door and guess what they find they find an one thousand year old wrapped inside a curtain and wrapped in another blanket immediately upon this discovery they leave and the chocolate make this now they're not in there to search for drugs they were in there to find her and once unfortunately they found they found her dead they left so that for so it's clear that their purpose is to check on the well being of this individual going on to the nd issue as this court has noted the point states that miller doesn't apply to eighteen year olds that we know and to the point that defend it cites people the suggs well in that case the this court noted that miller has never been applied to an individual or the age of twenty one that just doesn't happen the state acknowledges that districts have applied miller to eighteen in one thousand year old which is confusing because there's contradicting case law on that but here the defendant is twenty and a half years old he's six months away from turning twenty one and to the point that other courts have applied miller to other young adults there are factors that courts look at when deciding does millepied to the young adults and that's where i point to people be white's a case that i think it's  structive of the issue and people will be be why we have a twenty year old defendant same age as this defendant who is convicted of the same offenses st degree murder and conceive of a homicide of that and then people illinois constitution and in that case when people we be white the court said the fact that the defendant was twenty years twenty years old when he brutally murdered two people and attempted to conceal his involvement was not reason enough to consider him useful such that his life sentence which was mandatory in that case by the th amendment so the courts look at in applying miller to younger adults they look at  culpability they look at the culpability in committing the offense in attempting to avoid detection in the criminal history of the defendant and yes the state of knowledge is house and other courts ha distinguished house based on these factors and here we have an individual who is one hundred percent culpable this isn't my dad he stabbed her multiple times over and hit her with a frying pan and dented her she asked for help she pleaded for him to call the police and what did you do he finished her off on the bathroom floor in front of their twenty two year old son also couple bill at he wasn't like he was an accomplice he was in an individual helping somebody else he didn't know that this wasn't wrong because he had a history of domestic violence against this individual against morena he went to jail her parents told him stay away stop hurting or stop beating her he had been told multiple times to stay away from this defendant he knew what he was doing he had a history there is no way to argue that he didn't know because of his youth he's an almost twenty one year old man furthermore he attempted to avoid accountability of these crimes he he and he tried to hide it he hid her body on friday the next day he goes with his friends and buys cocaine and then he goes to a park and jess ingest it goes back to chicago buys more drugs he goes back to his apartment the police come wait let me hide her body while in jail she he he tells his sister if you can say anything to throw more raya under the bus that can say forty years of my life that is character assassination and he wasn't satisfied by just killing or he had to ruin her reputation as well try to there's no argument that that miller should be applied and here we have the point we have these agreed just crimes this raw court considered the mitigating and aggravating factors and furthermore the trial court did consider his very limited potential for rehabilitation but not apply an extended term and extended term sentence for his st degree murder charge which he would have been eligible for forty more years if it happened based on everything else stated in the state's brief the people of the state of illinois urged this court to uphold the order suppressing the motion denying the motion to suppress and i'm in uphold the sentences thank you counsel justice enough do you have any questions i do thank you counsel that morning morning do you do you agree with the defendant that harris did leave open an there why wasn't there are enough information about the defendant in the record for us to reveal his as applied challenge i mean what more than the medical records the detail psychological would have been introduced at a hearing before the trial part or there's a will when when you're talking about an as applied challenge yours you're assuming that the scientific research was presented to the trial court to consider it was never presented and even if this court could that's under the assumption that miller applied so you have to go through the st hurdle does miller apply if it doesn't are you even considering the scientific evidence and that's our position it does not apply and the most appropriate tribunals to review this is a trial court who conducted the sentencing  hearing with respect to the excessiveness of the sentence the fact that the defendant received only sixty years while he was eligible for extended term is truly irrelevant isn't it when it is that his sentence was greater than one and a half times a defacto a life sentence and  why why is the fact that he was eligible for extended term an only got the maximum important here it is relevant because here the defendant arguing that the trial court never considered anything to mitigate that sentence and i think that's relevant to that point but the state isn't relying on that to argue that the sentence was appropriate the state goes on to review the aggravating and mitigating factors with which the trial court considered and it considered the seriousness of the offense the worst offense and to say that to say that the facts were gruesome is an ok going back to the issue you started with which is the emergency exception to justify the entry what evidence i mean don't the officers need some evidence that there was an emergency in progress to enter when we look at the recent tests of their decision i mean here well there was a nine hundred and eleven call there still there was no yelling they saw no blood there were no guns as counsel pointed out everything was pretty quiet this was i mean why why would this there have to be some addition of an emergency right for them to go in without a warrant skate that is correct and here we have the physical manifestations of the defendant clearly something is wrong when the defendants eyes are rolling in the back of his head you know when it's true we don't have someone yelling we don't have keith doesn't have cuts on his face but he looks like he's about to pass out he's not coherent he's is not are articulate keyhole to stomach at some point the officers need to escort him to a different part of the building he's showing physical manifestations that something is wrong and individual already in that apartment is showing that he needs also medical attention because he's admitted to doing drugs that's part of that analysis that there is an emergency going on these people are highly steep on drugs this defendant looks like he's about to pass out on the chalkboard to comment on that so i believe that that is even though there's no cuts there's definitely signs time i'm sorry your honor you're kind of muddled and and i can't hear the question clearly and start can you hear me now yes ok even even with the circumstances as you  so clearly laid out as well as as laid out in your brief would there still be sufficient time to have gotten a search warrant in this case and if not why not remember that defeats the purpose of the emergency aid exception the emergent be the purpose is to aid somebody immediately that that is the purpose so the fact that you go get a warrant that kind of the seize the purpose while you're there and also when the officer testified that he called about getting narcotics search warrant he said it could take two hours so if if the victim was injured and dying because this defendant that stabber and if that had been later and she was like bleeding to death like waiting two hours would definitely have been a bad choice but yes it defeats the purpose of the emergency exception you don't have time to go in because you need to check if this missing person is ok and i do set a case for that i believe its people the thomas but like i said courts are all over the place some courts of of have honored forfeiture some courts have and there's really no like consistency when they're honoring forfeiture but i did put it out there for the court consider independent investigation was already in progress when the officers decided to enter the apartment my question is there it wasn't an independent drug investigation was there because the only when you're questioning the defense you know you're trying to ask the defendant where maria is but when you're questioning him and he come and he tells you things about drugs the main purpose of the questioning is to discover like more radio but that investigation also led to incriminating statements by the defendant so i guess it would go under that but it's not necessarily an investigation inevitable discovery but it never went any further than this congress this discussion this conversation so you're calling this intially a conversation an investigation well here's the thing it's  doctrine they couldn't have like completed that investigation that's why it's inevitable but when they requested that search warrant it was for the purpose to a theoretically attainable search warrant does not justify a warrantless search of the someone's  home ok so in that place it was unclear whether the state could have in fact it's seen a warrant and that case the court held that the sorts of information about the gun was the warrant they were looking for drugs and on and i believe how i read it that case the officers never tried to call to get a search warrant just the state  so you distinguish it primarily on the fact that here they could've obtain a search warrant no no and carter the state argued that they could have they never even tried here they did try no i know but i'm saying i understand but i'm saying you distinguish carter from the facts here because here the wells or the police could have been fact obtained a search warrant ok while the record doesn't provide us with the exact time that the officers entered the apartment we can assume it was sometime after officer far bro arrived which was approximately an hour after police arrived tenant apartment can you and i notice was asked by how can this constitute an emergency again these individuals are getting information and i'm not a police officer i can't say oh i gather this information earlier i would have thought this is an emergency at that point i'm not a full i'm not a police officer have not been trained to handle emergencies that situation but also to the point there were three different officers two officers were talking to the defendant and the rd officer was talking to two to another person and also the defendant lying to the officers about going into work these officers are in king are getting information that this defendant is lying about her her vehicle is there he is lying to them and in terms of inevitable discovery our contention is that this was an independent investigation and rely on people the carter which rejected this argument because really allowing inevitable discovery here would sort of encourage police officers to forego getting in and getting a warrant and just to rely on inevitable discovery to justify post hoc with what they've already done  on the on the sentencing issue counsel framed this issue as whether does miller apply and in a sense that that's not the right way to think about this argument because what applies is the illinois proportionate penalties cause and although the direct holding of miller involves obviously a younger defendant the the reasoning behind miller is much broader and it tells us informs our proportion penalties analysis that the sentence shocks the moral sense of the community so and that's been found by other cases which again which we've cited in our opening and reply briefs i would just point out two of them he will be franklin which involved nineteen year old defendants it's found that mental health issues may lower a defendant's functional age and similarly people v savage which actually involved a twenty two year old defendant found that mental health issues and drug addition drug addiction can lower the defendant's functional age so again we're not asking this court to do something that no court has ever done before we're asking it to follow established precedent and then finally i would just note that again we're not denying that these were brutal tragic facts in this case and that terrible decisions were made but what's important and what the underlying reasoning of miller tells us is that just because the something terrible event occurred that doesn't mean that that is inevitably and perpetually who the defendant will be juveniles young adults are not static they change i mean that bad is the heart of miller that and and we see that with michael in this case we see that in his jail behavior we see that in the psychological evaluation and just this is not the type of person that should be sentenced to two and in all likelihood die in mccoy the burden would be on you to prove the defense mental health condition lowered dysfunctional and why perhaps putting on the net for correct well again our contention is that in this in this case it given you know the hundreds of pages of psychological records and its pacifically the psychological evaluation that was done by an expert in this case that we have met that burd activity let me stop there but because i know you read it but how can this court fine a sentence of sixty years is excessive or disproportionate to the crime either well you know this is where our arguments kind of overlap between our constitutional argument and our excessive sentencing argument it really in many ways goes back to cuba scientific research that that underlies miller and its progeny and the fact is that the defendant is not as i said he's not a static individual like there is change the fact that this is who the defendant is when he's twenty years old doesn't mean that it's that he's always going to be when he's forty years old or fifty years old  the sentence here just renewed any possibility of rehabilitation is when you're giving a sentence that's over twenty years more than a sentence a that is an abuse of discretion given what we know about the neurological developments of young adult morning the case will be taken under advisement in a disposition will be rendered in due course mr clerk you may close the case and terminate the proceedings thank you