our brief on the briefing and then i would like some guidance for the court with pronunciation i'm important case in this discussion is united states versus  to juvenile of education's a strict priors in this case means that he's been sentenced to sentence of fifteen years to life imprisonment rather than the maximum of twenty years determine a term that he could otherwise have received my hope your honor that at some point an on bunk panel or perhaps the u s supreme court itself may indicate that is correct in that the other cases are wrong but until that time what i'd like to do rather it make sure that the judge derives his or her sentencing authority strictly from a finding it's been made by a jury it's a question of who has the power in the government and it's not a question of reliability so we think that that small injuns are wrong to rely on the notion that a juvenile adjudication can be used because in their opinion it's reliable the second reason which we think is a minor a delinquent without affording regular jury trial but the court made clear that that's because the juvenile justice system is fundamentally different from the criminal justice system a juvenile education is a criminal conviction you know and bringing the story and bringing a minor before the court in juvenile court is not a from a criminal prosecution that two systems have different objectives and so they have different procedures that's actually your honor that brings me to mind my second point that's that the second group of cases that have disagreed with thai go off on that basis that at least in california and in fact that's of the district court said in this case and that's why the california is a flawed analysis that's not a question whether the person is suburb or the adjudication it's a question of whether the person has committed the prior conduct and other words if we analogize to other factors that are used for these purposes like the use of a case well it's our position your honor that that it did address the question because it said you have to have the right to a jury trial and the juvenile education is not such an animal there is no right to a jury trial s doesn't come within the a pretty exception and it's all observational is from our point of view that the supreme court has been very very careful the narrow the exception that they're talking about it in fact because the court is probably aware in a couple of recent cases justices scalia and thomas have gone on record as saying that they're not so sure if arming doris torres is going to last much longer and they know that there is no majority on the court and it's still the same majority despite the two new judges justices to overrule our interests but there's nothing we can do about that i merely say that in order to indicate i think the court means what it says in feeling this to be a narrow exception and as such juvenile convictions can't come within it because they don't come within the language of a printing that says a jury trial park can see from blakely booker and some other things that are coming down the pike we don't know what sentencing things have to be proven to a jury anymore it's it's totally in a state of flux and the circuits have come to varying conclusions tories an apprentice and since the circuits can't agree on this issue it wasn't unreasonable for the court of appeal to come to one conclusion as opposed to the other and we would agree to the court it would be a new rule because we don't have a rule right now you know he views is not the form to resolve it ultimately the united states supreme court will hopefully sort it out a little better we would point out very briefly if the court is inclined to take another look whereas california affords all the protections as far as a prior conviction or jude occasion goes whether it's a juvenile education or prior health conviction namely it has to be charged in the information prov crime well that's true your honor but the issue and this is what the court of appeal found in this case the issue in a prior conviction and handsome and or three third strike or second strike or whatever is whether the defendant was the person who suffered the prior adjudication or conviction not whether the conduct in that conviction was true beyond a reasonable doubt so the defendant's already had a trial beyond reasonable doubt albeit not in front of a jury on the conduct underlying the prior conviction so when you get to the three strikes case and you look at like whether to hate crime or not that's an issue of fact relating to the current crime which is whether it's a hate crime and you have to prove that in california have to prove that before the jury but in the third strike prior conviction context the issue whether defendant did what he was alleged to have done ten years ago but whether the prior exists and that's the context in which the three strikes law looks at it and that's what he has the right to a jury or some other state where there is a jury trial on the prior and then they'll be an offer you need to decide whether t v extends to that situation for etc he isn't the vehicle for a doing that so that would be our position on that issue and before we submit i would just ask if the court had any questions on any of the other issues that were raised in the