applies only to crimes that were committed afterwards effect after it's effect right a brand new statute that talks about after it's effect you know how would that not apply to both  hundred five the nearly creates an additional step in the sentencing process providing courts the discretion that they were once lacking and allowing the judge to determine based on their assessment of the juvenile under if they're going to impose the of miller's alabama which rendered mandatory juvenile life sentences unconstitutional it was sensitive not because of the expansion of the range but because miller place certain mandatory sentences constitutionally beyond the state's power under section four of the session said under that language section four prohibits construing a new law to effect a penalty or punishment that was already incurred under the former law defendants hunter and wilson were already sentenced in the trial the only exception to that rule is found in the mitigating punishment provision and the second sentence of section four and that provision only a applies and gives the sentencing ranges for juvenile defendants is specifically states in subsection b the penalties that apply to juvenile defendants the other is dispositions or those that are found an article for quite the code with the exception says that the proceedings there after shall conform so far as practicable to the laws in force at the time of the proceeding so the question is whether a particular proceeding must conform to the new law and that question cases there's rules that cover government trials in the invisibility of expert testimony and so on and so forth but the session statutes as is that the proceed ings that are occurring must conform to the form has been selected and there's no need to remain on for another another proceeding in a different form where it's already been selected what if the respondent was raising other issues  get remanded in the state would be allowed to have another trial however we are going to go well in juvenile court the event would govern at that time because it is a procedural change and the proceeding now this is just just like an hour is pending on appeal the case itself is not finally your honor but section four doesn't use the term final judgment section four uses the terms proceedings thereafter shall conform to pursue the to the laws in force at the time of the proceeding limitation and that would apply to briefs that are filed after the change occurs but certainly the court wouldn't require us refile groups because that is not what the rule is intended to do it's not intended to go back and that's consistent with what section four is all  law that applied at the time crime or criminal case or at the time that a suit arose in the context of a criminal case and so most often legislation will not go back in time and you apply the law that was in effect at the time  when the crime occurred or when the super rose however procedural changes are different and so for procedural changes you will apply them to ongoing proceedings but again in relation to where the case it is at that point in time and so when procedures they were followed under prior law before the new law took effect are valid and only what procedures remain to be done after the new law takes effect ne substantive changes again goes to the point where we don't want to reach back in time and the time that we're looking at is when the crime occurred that's the normal time or when the suit arose and in a civil case we're not going to reach back in time and change things so we're not going to  to the case before us isn't the importance of glisten and f p m edkins is that the court used section four to determine whether the amendments in question applied has been filed there's no need to go back and force that person to file again likewise grand jury indictment proceedings if the rules change for what can be admitted and grand jury indictment proceedings we wouldn't we wouldn't even in the course of a circuit proceeding ask the state to go back dr person nor would we do that when the once the case on appeal this is an understanding that's reflected historically in this country and and section four encompasses that understanding this isn't a new phenomenon or honors as this a provision is changed and it is procedural in nature and then it comes on appeal and the question and the change occurs while the case is pending on appeal and the question before the court is well yes this is procedural but then does it apply to require other discretionary transfers transfer proceedings and as for brown the issue was simply not presented to the court didn't address this question as to whether intersection  this or very clearly acknowledge that the automatic transfer statute that was in fact illinois at the time they have an automatic transferred simply doesn't match up with the reality of what we now know part furthermore it is also significant that the amendment to section five hundred thirty that we are dealing with here contains no oral limitation was in direct weak here as it howard we are not challenging the legality of the transfer at the time we are simply stating that under the state of the law as it now stands that transfer was incorrect and his he's must be remanded for the adult court but after a conviction they are not convicted of an automatic transfer of funds and that provision states that when that happens the state has to file a petition so we can hold a hearing to determine how the human eye should be appropriately transferred