i've looked at everything i'm not sure raises the same issues and i'm also and i think one of the issues that's out there that perhaps isn't focused on in the only supreme court cases is the state constitutional issue right and precise in trying to limit the scope of its rulings in and if you look at what comes after those three there has been very very few cases that decided to expand it i was an exception and they did under their state constitution and you argue it in the brief it's there and i wonder if you could touch on the state constitutional issue here because in illinois we are katsa to should read stiffer than even the u s constitution there are words that are different yet and they are more prone to send us in what is in the u s constitution you don't have cruel or unusual our state constitution talks about the proportional correct how does that affect this case well if this court could fact that judge joyce sentenced your client to the minimum of twenty a murder in the minimum of twenty four he had out yet was the least you know the most generous sentence he possibly could have imposed is that right absolutely and i think the record us to find that the truth and basically the route we need to take to get to is the truth i'm sensing station goes out yes so that somehow we get good time to read it back ok is that it w cannot be construed that way i think of a way to conceptualize that is that miller a case it involves life without parole mandatory life without parole can now be applied to every single non probation  that this court should be in the business of issuing opinion just to be advisory to the supreme court on a case that's pending but i think there's enough authority out and i think if you're i pointed out the overwhelming majority but maybe not overwhelming i don't want to overstate nobody but i mean she would have what benefit would there be for us to decide this that because as i said i think there's enough authority out there i mean i course maybe i'm biased but i think it's been quite as good a role in our favor in that way paterson as what different language and it means more and it's more profound because when it was written in one nine hundred seventy it was intended to be quote and also the spirit of the proposed amendment is in accordance with not for this this court but i guess my response then were given well then the defect you can't rely on granting miller to guide this court's analysis on what it should do with regard to the sentence in this case because those are strictly eighth amendment cases they're categor so i think it's your honor pointed out in counsel is up here is that thirty years is forty years and it's interesting that you understand that because there are a number of cases function henry and wall that actually have that exact language in the opinion saying where two were to be  consecutive terms i mean in the run of patterson he was convicted of three counts of aggravated carnal sexual assault it was twelve plus twelve plus twelve his sentence was thirty six years with it's to be serving eighty five percent so in this case obviously murder it's different important ways because the automatic transfer statute is a procedural mechanism and it's it's i don't think i'm showing my hand in arguing this it's involves procedural mechanisms regarding a forum where the case decision and and say where they upheld the juvenile automatic transfer statute against due process and equal protection challenges the supreme court expressly recognize that that subjects them to link their sex so this  isn't something that is the only supreme court is unaware of or that the certainly i think it would be a giant step to say that the illinois legislature is unaware of it when they passed the automatic transfer statute that was the whole point of