next case on the court schedule today is people stafford it's case number four one four zero three zero nine  the third member of this panel cannot be here today however he's read the briefs and all the other materials he will be listening to the audio recording and then participating in the ultimate decision this cour reaches having said that you may see the united states supreme court in miller versus alabama and that of and in miller of course that was a landmark decision where the united states supreme court held that the mandatory imposition of life without parole is individualized consideration use is not possible under the mandatory sentencing schemes that were at issue in miller the court categorically van the imposition the mandatory imposition of life without  individualized consideration view these concerns are present regardless of whether or not the life without parole sentence was imposed mandatorily or discretionary fact i believe that the question of whether or not the subject of a by their motion to cited supplemental authority and it seems that the state actually agrees on this point to some degree as well now admittedly montgomery vite miller did involve a mandatory a mandatory life without parole sentence and of course the central issue there was just simply whether or not miller applies retroactively significantly however and holding that miller did announce a new subset of rule that applies retroactive illinois of people versus nido and this of course was also part subject of my third motion to cite supplemental authority now people versus nido the first district held that miller applie resolved the issue of whether or not miller applies to a discretionary only imposed life sentence and as i noted before it seems that the state agrees on this point and i see this because in the final pleading filed here in this court  following mcgovern those individuals who receive a life without parole sentence for crimes committed as a juvenile are entitle to a hearing where they are given the opportunity to show that their crime reflected transiently maturity and to suggest is that the steeple is that the hearing should be held at the third stage of post conviction proceedings and we would submit that this seems that this is not seem to be an appropriate inquiry for stage three because of course the question is the issue is whether or not the individual's constitutional rights have been violated and so in this context it seems like the appropriate impre there would be whether or not the original sentencing hearing complied with miller the original sentencing hearing did not comply with miller then of course the petitioner is a member rights have been violated if the petition should be granted whereupon then i think it would be appropriate for the individual to get the miller with emory hearing if you will  and with respect to that hearing i do believe that this would be an absolute sentencing hearing and i say this because according to the mcgovern and i quote here the procedure miller prescribes is a hearing where youth and its intended characteristics are consider sentencing factors and so it seems clear that the supreme court is contemplating that a million of them are hearing again if you will would in fact be every sentencing and we sentencing hearing i will note here however that although the violated now we have courts disagree with this position as we did in the briefing but i would actually submit that it seems that at this point this would not actually be in an appropriate determination and i see that i see this because this is an appeal court that should have the opportunity to first pass on the question of whether or not the original sentencing hearing complied with miller so just to briefly summarize my argument here today so first of all of course we believe that miller applies retroactively regardless of whether or not he a life without parole sentence was imposed mandatorily are discretionary and for the reasons outlined in the brief which i believe have been or are supported and bolstered by subsequent developments in the law it seems that the appropriate procedure in illinois for these matters would be that the affected individual with file post a picture petition and then ultimately that the post conviction court would have a hearing on the limited issue of whether or not the original sentencing hearing complied with miller and forcibly if it did not then the individual and then be afforded the miller montgomery hearing and then here again because this is the stage to dismiss all we we believe that every man for further posting pics and proceedings would be most appropriate before i conclude i would i would just like to know that that after miller every ted in our state who who now faces potentially a life sentence is afforded the protections contemplated in miller after davis by our supreme court after m every juvenile who received this life without parole sentence even before miller was entitled to these same texans left out of of of this constitution where heck that is a small group of individuals provision that he had to be eighteen that in fact he was never for that reason alone eligible for the life sentence now i will i would note that this court primary reason i stayed  see away from that argument today is because of course the argument in my assessment is predicated on the castle on the castle very decision and its potential retroactively whether or not it if oyu the boy sentence rule is abolish retroactively and to that end i would just know that in case the court is not aware and i have very recently learned but the question of whether or not castle various retroactive is currently pending in the only supreme court one of the cases i cited in the briefing people versus price out of the first issue which to be clear i cited for other reasons but as i understand it in that in that particular case the briefing was completed but the only supreme court actually ordered supplemental briefing on the specific question of whether or not pass a very applies retroactively if i understand that everything is now complete and we're awaiting that decision and so i believe that that would think control essentially this court's ability to reach the boy sentence issue well basically all three issues brief that castlebar was not a new rule of criminal procedure right and if so t t l c s doesn't make any difference know this was what had been done to help him in the past all the various statements and x it he had made one of the most telling once if i could refer to you was that he had told since the time from he said that until the time he started to get close to adulthood and nothing that the state of iowa or his parents anything could change that that's who we are is the child her recognize that gave them natural life sentence and that this hearing that is what is needed in order to determine whether the defendant sentence violated the eighth amendment the first place but some sort of evidentiary hearing and the evidence you're hearing provided in mind the review alabama referred to a system so the procedure provided under my government miller is very limited for that respect simply the minimum necessary to label the defendant to show whether he falls in a protected class or not and because the state's  these decisions makes an explicit point that they did say at a minimum it is possible that when viewing sense through the lens of no in consideration and considering that children are sent however almost every one of these times it is mentioned is really nothing more than a chronological fact he was you know what we're told that this happened or it's ira now of course the judge did admit that he that he shrugged  with the defendant's age but again this similar to my first point this is this is not the type of individual as consideration of you and all the ethnic characteristics that are contemplated and miller and finally i would just know that