gary was ever in the parking lot of that chase bank whereas there was evidence that several other individuals were most notably the state's witness eric jones and it bears emphasis that the trial judge in this case didn't believe for a minute that karen was not involved in the murder of ron del the police didn't believe it either he was arrested and was arrested was the principal subject suspect in this case and was released only after he gave up the area so let me elaborate on each of these points in turn first we know that one day i was not shot at the gas station but rather at the chase bank a block away after he you testified that yes he testified that he saw darien shooting but there's no evidence to back the evidence quite to the contrary that one dell was actually shot in that sequence of events the evidence shows rather bad run dell was shot ballistics evidence but defense counsel did not argue specifically that the shooting go round there based on the forensic evidence that we have would have had to have taken place at at the bank so that's that's that's not  know the way the defense counsel in his case being tried to put forward an argument for the for the for the trial judge that there had to be multiple shooters that doesn't quite yet down exactly the reasons for that we'd be happy to i'm i guess my question is if the argument wasn't made to the trial john how can it be a basis for a sufficiency of the evidence argument not well because the  shot at the gas station and that was the state's theory of the case and so it was the state's burden to produce evidence that actually showed that ron belt was shot at the gas station but there's no you know that in the sufficiency of the evidence argument the this court is reviewing the ultimate conclusion of the trial court and the conclusion of the trial court is not sustained by the evidence that that the state presented we would be happy to provide a supplemental brief arguing ineffective assistance gas station that despite those injuries he managed to run climb a seven foot high fence go way down the block cross sixty sixth place into the chase bank while he had a state did not produce any evidence that was what it was it could very well i think we see words it was found right near were casey was shot and was on the ground bleeding and then you know from the forensic investigator stipulation that there was wearing feet four feet or so from from darien at the time of the shooting at gas station he only saw one gun nobody saw a second gun so there's really no way to conclude reasonably based on all this bad run down shot at the gas station as opposed to at the bank parking lot and so the evidence to be sufficient to convict dairying we would need some evidence tying gary into the events in the bank parking lot we don't have that either early in this money mr stafford the he said here is shooting at the gas station quincy words testimony when he said he heard three shots fired and we know that when he was shot three times in the back as a stipulation of the trauma surgeon and then he went he fell down to the ground and run jail took off climb that fence and ran down the block it's not believable that he could have done that with a brilliant has long been a severed pulmonary artery much less do that without leaving any blood anywhere between the gas station and the bank parking lot where he's ultimately found and so that's that's how we know that there was a second shooting in this case at the bank parking lot me is that while nothing and no no witness ever put barium in the bank parking lot we do know that our individuals were there most notably aaron jo know from ronald's testimony bat was driving his lexus through the bank parking lot when ronald reagan after his brother and found him there we know for months testimony that there was bad blood between aaron at least one of the more brothers namely ronald we know that the trial judge to believe that aaron was innocent in this case we know that the police didn't believe it we know that and was arrested and was only released after he gave up the area and we also from ends testimony that after the shooting he drove back to his house went inside for just a few seconds came right back out and drove to the royal marines which is immediately south of the chase bank where he was then stopped and rested by the police minutes i think it was about five minutes or so after the shooting and there was no right to search aaron's house despite the fact that he was held in custody for two or three slot that all three shots took place in the shade in the chase lot could not have been shot at the b p station run to the chase lot in the air and we shot milan well there was a there was a good recovery from his abdomen which is a twenty two which is not consistent with any of the gas station there was blood recovered but it wasn't tested so we don't know that it didn't come from quincy will that we don't know we know that there were at least two guns used in this in these events but we don't have any testimony that darien had to balance and we know that the gun that was discharged the gas station was not a twenty two which is the bowling and it just it just sounds to me that like you're saying where it gets us to be guilty of first degree murder he has to be the one who caused rondo's death yes we've actually shot rundle which goes back to my question right quick what we assume even if even if the judge because again we would have to believe that having been shot in the long in the primary artery he managed to jump that fence run all the way down the block and do it without leaving to shooting victims found in two different places each one with some blood found right near where the victim's body is found and nobody in between it's very difficult to understand how that set of facts could happen unless there were two shootings in two different locations now there are some outstanding questions from from the court if i could circle back and make sure that they get but the evidence shows it requires the inference that rondo was actually shot at the chase bank and so reliance on mr saffold testimony doesn't actually prove what the state needs circumstances there's just not enough evidence to show that darien actually shot rondo at the gas station as opposed to the bank parking lot and there's no it is a daring was a brick in the bank parking lot and so there's just simply not sufficient evidence to show that darien whatever happened at the gas station there's evidence still does not show that it was daily in who shot and killed ron he made quite clear on the record that he would impose a lesser sentence if he could but the statue precluded him from doing so and for that reason  asked to consider mitigating evidence relating to the defendant's youth and capacity for rehabilitation the judge did that the judge made very specific findings and said either this natural place really not mandatory i would still impose allow us to say that mr harris in particular there are particular characteristics about him either than his age that were into a lesser in adequate record never would apply to this particular defendant and i don't see any difference in this case in trams of the record that was created in the trial all we know is it was slightly over eighteen years and he had no criminal background that's an arm of letters that were submitted to the clerk for consideration that at sentencing from various friends and relatives of people who knew darien describing again as a quote kid to look for lead in the wrong place and fell into the hands of the enemy as they saw it through and how to survive a fit in how not to be childhood the circumstances under which the defendant grew up his exposure to gangs or drugs and look at this case mr harris grew up in a two parent household he described himself as spoiled by his  barely eighteen we have that he has no criminal record we have the evidence in mitigation that was submitted to the trial judge that the judge could rule the thing with because he thought my hands are tied i like my question is you keep referring to the evidence in medication he's slightly over eighteen and he has no criminal background what other evidence and medication is there are there are there are those things there's on what they tell us is that the capacities for judgment for self control for planning for reining in impulsive behavior all those things that we know teenagers people darian they don't have those capacities for the flourish by the time we turn about twenty five twenty two year old twenty dissimilarly situated twenty two year old and at the senate make the same argument i'm just not fully develop only would i would say it depends on the circumstances of the particular case i mean this is such an extreme case because he's just barely past eighteen and as the credit another panel of the court said in  e you can't assume that all the things we know about teenagers and their propensity to do foolish rational place of things without thinking through that these things just go away so how is this rash well we know about darien from from the letters to the court is that he was seen by those who knew him as susceptible to various kinds of peer pressure that he generally was a very kind of good kid and something went wrong i would suggest it's only for the trial judge to determine whether to what extent all of those factors are play in this case i don't think the court needs to make that this court needs to make that determination at this point but well first alabama requires is just the discretion on the part of a sentencing judge to consider these factors as they pertain to a defendant's youth and determine whether a warrant the ultimate penalty of a facto or to your a life sentence or whether they warrant something lesser that's not in the remaining for the sensing in this case this court doesn't need to come to the full conclusion that yes this area needs to get a lesser sought i mean then the op shot would be that each of these cases would be at a time that you have to look at the circumstances in every case in some cases there is a proportionate handholding proud moment in other cases there isn't and so we really can't establish a body of law because they're all at home well there would be when you have a very unusual defendant who may well be susceptible to peer pressure who may well be adult capacities for judgment planning and appreciation consequences of one's actions that a sense in judge should have the discretion to consider the extent to which those factors pertaining to the defendant's conduct in a particular case and to have the opportunity to make specific making well the legislature certainly has broad authority to set penalty ranges but to the extent that any of those penalty ranges run afoul of a constitutional guarantee that you know if you look at the underlying rationale of millibars is that all that and what makes house persuasive authority is precisely the extent to which it doesn't just mechanically apply a precedent that says well let's look carefully at what the underlying reasoning for this president is and determine how we need to apply this precedent in order to be faithful to the line of reasoning to give it full effect and the conclusion there was well just asked the court to allow a judge forward to explain exactly what he meant when he said i wish my wish i had more options in this case made give them a chance this case to substitute its judgment for that of judge ford and that that is not your proper standard i'm not going to belabor this point but this court is well aware of the standard of review insufficiency that out of this case which is that in the light most favorable to the no testimony that i'm certain that you could tell the caliber of a bullet from you know an m r i or anything like that but i mean there is a bullet there but the thirty eight caliber if we're going to go down that path your honor there's a possibility that there rates and who brought the defendant to the crime scene judge ford had every right to be suspect of this man but he could still based upon his grand jury credibility finding a based upon him all of this evidence shows that we can trust and believe his testimony as the court was right to find him guilty the defendant guilty based upon that testimony if they're no president that we have to follow here are set by those two cases and really what's the defendant's asking this court to do is a supreme court opinion which this on well that's not true because for several reasons one so in people versus taylor case that the state is worried you would to mandatory life sentence the court said that it couldn't be raised that point because it was on appeal from the denial of a section to forty one decision that was seventeen years late relied on the boy's judgment rule which has a very polished so i'd like to go back for a moment if i can to you first argument this fish and see the evidence for dairy and conviction and the point that i would like to stress closing for the court that reasonable inferences can be drawn from the evidence that we have and that's a different question that's fishing see the evidence review and for the reasons that we put forward regardless of uncontested testimony then at mr harris fire didn't direct in the direction of the two people standing back disabled or a and no reasonable finder a fan could find that intended to shoot and did shoot round elm no reason the finder of fact could could find that he did shoot randell more at that at the gas station because there's nobody knows that no inference no reasonable we have to conclude that an individual with as a state pointed out a significant amount of blood in his lawn and a severed arterial connection between his heart and his long managed un situation randell had actually been shot at the gas station and made it to the bank under the circumstances so we know there was a second shooting you know that there was a second gun we don't have any evidence