thousand and four i think february he was charged with this fine so was he nineteen then earth do we know two thousand he was fifteen correct so two thousand four february he was and apparently he was arrested and most immediately after another crime which involved apparently an attempted murder involving a beating there was no gun in kabul now the record as we don't have any of the at least the case itself but apparently he was given twenty years for the attempt murder so whatever can't be it was there must have been some finding that he was actually trying to kill someone correct correct cell apparently the decision get twenty four the attempt later that the stake goes to trial on this case and he's found guilty and he's given the forty five she says she's giving simple years he committed a new crime in two thousand for so that forty five year sentence was consecutive because of the statute requiring that if you are found guilty of another crime while you're out on bond for a different crime you must have a consecutive sounds so my question is yes it took me one time to get here as this doesn't mean in this case that this really isn't like any of the other cases where the court certainly our u s supreme court where the mandatory life couldn't be imposed for a juvenile convicted of a singular crime does it matter at all  saying that having one offense and another means that that person is encouraged i'm just saying that it is there any impact in this case of time the fact that this other offense which  resulted in the consecutive sentence which is sixty what sixty years instead of the forty five days it manner that this came about as a result of something up and it's not really tall and really any cases and it's not know where to go for or anything else because this is a different situation actually this is not the same as any of those other cases and i don't know that it's really been find that forty five isn't effective like this state is going to take the same position they took in for so that then this case will certainly remain there either i mean you know pilate just roper if we look at those again we're not going to find a place similar to this case involving in juvenile who was found guilty as an adult of one crime and then tried five years later for the for direction from the supreme court on par and that you know they should be forthcoming because it is a pivotal case in terms of being the differences of opinion in the first district even  conduct correct exactly and the reason that would be because in this case now a different courses of conduct but the second crime is committed when he is an adult so then you're going to have a juvenile offender who  him greater potential to serve the exact kind of people that we need to impose harsher sentences on but he is but was this juvenile ever really looked at it the way th our even our own cases are out in terms of the fact that when he did commit murder he was fifteen and you're talking about the three year sentence only yes the including the benefit each and every time but you know is there something radically wrong with the system where a fifteen year olds that day now he doesn't even have an automatic transfer correct grammar correct the time frame this particular juvenile isn't getting the benefit of any of and if you were rude to her that he should then every juvenile would have to be resounds in this court itself the stated of the twenty years in this will be served at eighty five percent ok so he is going to be serving eighty five percent to twenty and then on the forty five he's still be one hundred percent correct ok so it would be a total of sixty two years for for the two calculation for the age of release until a later date than fifteen it states position he shouldn't get the benefit of having that calculation study a later time because he was counted from the jurisdiction he committed a second crime that went to trial first that he did not identify petition welfare should we consider the forty five years when why shouldn't we consider it bad with the twenty because you are getting greater protections under the eighth amendment then by the juveniles those are three reasons why you should not ok and what about the forty five what's the difference between forty five and fifty isn't it really the mandatory  somehow be attached to this in juvenile sense and so we think these are sixty cases talk about an opportunity for release what ok then how do we know though that bit there really any of these things were language they have spoken that you do not get to aggregate sentences from crimes that were not we have before us because like i said his instincts about this witness and the potential gitana she would do this case were was reasonable especially where her alibi testimony would have been weak she she did not know infinite she had never seen him before but stated that she saw him across the street element that night you know you've been hearing between nine and ten thirty but we know that she could not have seen him between nine and ten thirty because he had been arrested bed ten twenty in the defense case that day they say well that's only off by ten minutes however who's to say that she was up by ten minutes at nine twenty when he was  shooting at the victim in this case her testimony her alibi testimony would have been weak it was reasonable for him to reject that and not call him because you cannot establish that counsel here was ineffective the quote properly dismissed this station at the