unconstitutional as applied to him based upon his base upon his upbringing and being just fifteen years old at the time the crime was committed in balance the  question of whether in order for you to prevail here and get another you get a nd stage hearing for a sentencing hearing whether or not you have to prove that the plea agreement was involuntary in some way and i don't i don't know how you can succeed i mean yes i think the biggest case look at would be for her that that that district case which i granted leave to file  e guilty if he knew the something range which the state discussed in their upper teeth tracks in which i think the biggest difference here is that they are the defendant playin that fifteen year olds are less culpable than older teens and that armed robbery with a firearm is a less serious offense than class x offenses that include physical harm like aggravated have us spoken of the physical harm being an important consideration on in determining the communities and evolving standards defendant here knowingly intelligently and voluntarily entered a fully negotiated plea for what if you follow class or ok yanis parker bar i with every us and supreme court case that is considered a miller if amendment claim because every one of those courts base their miller analysis on the actual sentence imposed parker  provided opportunity for restoration to to use full citizenship and battery itself the buffer quite said that a sentence of forty years or under also provided some meaningful opportunity for restoration to useful citizenship so when you look at the supreme court's determinations in those cases not a sentence i wish this defendant will be released at twenty six or thirty constitutionally incorrect when you're using when you're looking at the how this bill or not i in the united states supreme court cases have conducted that miller th amendment analysis  already determined that when when considering the evolving moral standards set to finance big stuff and that those cases speak to it's already determined that a sentence under forty arguably apples and apples sources apples and oranges and that is the poker case in your initial remarks before we sort of got we diverted you you indicated that the state faced there was wrongfully decided or maybe  of the united states and supreme court cases and if amendment miller claims none of those cases have looked at a potential sentence within a range of defending him parker was sentenced to thirty six years that's plea and the state recommended a sentencing cap of fifty years which included a potential day facto term within the state's recommendation was operating under that this state fifty year cap without knowing that buffer would require consideration of his home in factors prior to the imposition of a sentence over forty years so it you know is if you really look at parker it's really an involuntary or the knowing plea case but here in this case this defendant was not only aware of miller kept offered by the state as in parker and the state here agreed to a twenty one year minimum term sentence which does not did not never will implicated de facto life term under buffer he known about buffer he would have known that the twenty one years offered sentence did not violate the if amendment and he still would have taken the plea so when mike parker defendant consideration of home and factors this constitutional country to defend its claim here if he's correct and minatory application of the gun in his suit was unconstitutional in hungary the sentencing range it's constitutional yonder skosh and should be used when confronted with a proportionate penalties claim based on a miller amendment analysis in fact paterson could potentially invade the legislative power to fix and ots where sharpest already found this range to be constitutional if this quote does incorporate and if amended miller based rationale into a proportionate have found that these moral standards under these moral standards only a sentence over forty years requires consideration of the home and factors does in a shock the conscience claim under proportionate penalties a sense of forty years or under does not run afoul of these evolving moral standards and defendant's twenty one year sentence doesn't fail doesn't shock the conscience that's right another reason my bones are strong we decided you have a long time to think about that choice and hopefully when you get out you won't repeat that mistake and quote it is a discussed defendant who will get out twenty six or thirty six years old has a meaningful opportunity for restoration peaceful citizenship when you consider what patterson that pettersson found thirty six year sentence did provide that info for a forty year sentence so his so stipulate