and charm for first degree murder his case was excluded from the jurisdiction of the juvenile court under section five dash one three zero of the juvenile court act consequently he was tried as an adult and after he was found guilty of all three of these charges he was sentenced as an adult the course of the sudden was remarkably complicated it's a court imposed mandatory minimum i guess you would say base prison sentences of twenty years for the murder and years of this term which makes him one hundred five years old before he can first qualify for m s r this means that his son's gives him no meaningful opportunity to demonstrate second thing is that the same thing he so he is if he had gotten forty five years somehow survived it and then came out and killed another person he again would get mandatory natural life and even though he had killed two people being presented to the supreme court their court will ultimately resolve this and it's a difficult question it's something that you know i worry at the very beginning of  think a very long process of determining what miller means but i think we can state with confidence that miller means that a child who has who are person a juvenile teenager everyone call the sixteen years old when he committed a are you sitting big picture fish miller dictates that there's no mandatory transfer no consecutive sentences for a sixteen year agree this is a big we talked about this quite a bit my office and we are not sure what this court can do as far as giving direction but i think the direction should be at least at the minimum that the heat the court cannot feel be constrained by any mandatory minimum which results in a natural life sentence in there and i don't think we can say don't we can consecutive big you can do the fire week of miller however and miller the majority addressed the issue of discretionary transfers and said that the issue of just i'm sorry inside the discretionary transfers have limited utility that the discretion needs to be at sentencing because at the point where a charge is making the determination of whether to transfer a juvenile to a dell court he doesn't have the amount of information i don't have a formal objection i guess i would have to rephrase that i don't have a formal objection i don't think there's a need to wait because they do hope and presume that they will go the way of the majority but if your honour's think that it's sentenced for one time one of the fourteen year old was sentenced for capital murder and the other fourteen year old was sentenced for committing murder in the course of arson or for murdering somebody was committing arson and both in this offense received mandatory natural life in prison and the trilogy of key says that address or that that have culminated in the miller decision all addressed natural life and president how is how is ninety seven years or from getting eighty nine years or defendant getting out of prison one hundred five years old not natural life found one hundred years for an accountability defendant to be unconscionable and of course legislative mandates or of course the eighth amendment trumps legislative mandates and i'm going to legislative me and deeds and impose whatever sentences he'd seen fit which brings me to my biggest concern with this issue i don't judge to have discretion as to whether or not the wrist he should impose the fire at oncet turning into tory the mandatory consecutive terms and where that request came from and to send this there are essentially seeing what essentially be a directive for the trial court to disregard legislative mand the cases where defendant has failed to prove that and you know these statutes are unconstitutional or that his sentence is unconstitutional under miller it would be if we'd sent it it would be a void sent great but i think legislative act i've not checked to see whether legislative action was taken in arkansas and alabama which were the two states involved in the one but i presume that that was going to be the next step but o defacto life sentence that is not what miller was about miller was about natural life in prison without parole and the other issue is the request like i said understand that is the big distinction however we do have a defendant who comes committed multiple offenses at the same time it was at the same time but it wasn't one to act he shot three people so i don't think that the span of time or the difference in time between the accumulation of the offenses in getting and the offenses indian cities i don't think that that is a pertinent english in fact i think the fact that it didn't involve the juvenile i think that's important for the reason i cited to that case which is solely to support the proposition the ninety seven years every aspect of the sentence is mandatory and so we have mandatory ninety seven year and i did this it's just defies reason to to to say that because it isn't call that natural life instead it's called ninety seven years and it actually get to a sixteen year old which of course is one hundred years if it is a natural life and