i just want to make sure we are now discussing the case of people versus three right by appearing on behalf of the appellant today mr hunter white and i with a two p's or five minutes for thank you the issue before the court today is whether post conviction counsel performed reasonably when representing andrea why on post conviction proceedings where he challenge the constitutionality of his life sentence for a crime that was imposed and when he was a twenty year old young emerging adult adequately present the claim in the post conviction petition where he did not raise an as applied constitutional challenge rd counsel do not cite any case lot in support of his amended post conviction petition and forth confident not include any facts counsel turning to the st concern with counsel's performance how did not review the necessary parts of the record in order to represent mr lighton as post conviction claim r and fifty one c states that counsel must review the trial record when appearing in post condition proceedings and that means the necessary parts of the record and the record suggests that he did not review the p s i i in the sentencing case well there are there are six if you want to see certificates and the record indicating that counts are due the entire record of proceedings but counsel's comments and other actions in the records show that he did not there was a guess the need of the as applied constitutional challenge to make an as applied constitutional challenge to a life sentence for a young emerging a da you have to include facts about that event in mr white's case there was information in the p that counsel could have used to show that his brain development was more of a juvenile rather than it all there is indication that his father actually was absent from his life and was living in texas that was in the p s i i also  and make someone more like a juvenile that an adult so that is that is some of the information in the p s a that could have been used and that goes to i guess that the the final three  concerns of counsel performance here and that he needed to adequately shape the claim in mr white's petition to proper legal form to raise an as applied challenge courts at the time that counsel was representing mr white suggested that this was basically the way to challenge the constitutionality of a license for you know dogs that's the case people versus thompson and illinois supreme court case which says that you can't just exclusively rely   information about that particular defendant's criminal history information about the defendant to cher's education and information about the specific facts of the crime what about the hearing did you information you just described should have been produced at the hearing and not a bit was produced none of it was used in a manner petition at all it's a pretty brief petition it's about three pages long and then at articles at the hearing this information was not provided because counsel said that he didn't believe there was a p s i i there it said so it wasn't provided the other information that was are provided are the details about mr white that he himself included in the process a post conviction petition more information about his background struggles that his mother had of the diction was not discussed at the hearing more information about the types of crimes that mr white has committed and his exposure to incarceration was not presented at the hearing information about the homes that he lived and was in the prostate p s i i but was not discussed in the amended dition or at the compliance that is true but the record robots that there was actual compliance here again the indications where he did her question p s i and told the court that he didn't think there was one when you look thomson said that you can't just be explicitly relying on the the signs of juvenile churning brain development to get to the miller factors before you can get there you have to show facts that those actors but even apply to illinois supreme court rule sixty one c at a nd stage post conviction proceeding the right to counsel is statutory only requiring that counsel provide a reasonable level of assistance this level of assistance is lower than is constitutionally required at trial or on appeal rule sixty one c requires that the record in post conviction proceedings demonstrate that appointed counsel one has consulted with petitioner either by mail or in person to ascertain his contentions deprivation of constitutional rights to has examined the record of the proceedings at trial and three has made any amendments to the petition filed pro se that are necessary for an adequate presentation of petitioners contentions the defendant only asserts that the nd and rd requirements were not met and substantial compliance with rule sixty one c is sufficient in people versus wallace this court stated that the post that post conviction counsel need only make amendments that are necessary to adequately present the defendant's claims rebuttable presumption that post conviction counsel provided reasonable assistance and it is the defendant's burden to overcome this presumption by demonstrating his attorney's failure to substantially comply your honor is in reference to this the nd requirement of reviewing the record as the defendant states in his brief post conviction counsel for the defendant did indeed request a trial transcript appellate orders and opinions the pro se petition and the defendant's location inmate number however there is nothing in the record for just that post conviction counsel limited his review to the record or of the record to only those i know even still the defendant claims that because post conviction counsel was briefly unaware of the defendant's present investigation not post conviction counsel failed to examine the trial record the defendant himself was unaware of a and had in fact told his post conviction counsel it did not exist post conviction counsel not reading the pre sentence investigation does not mean that he did not receive that information through some other  counsel present any evidence that would sufficiently apply to an as applied challenge for an emerging and that  claim and then i believe subsequently he provided some supplemental authority to that in house harris and i believe there was one in the case of what about the defendant himself and his care there and his had considered people above the age of eighteen and believe only two cases and those cases subsequently were overturned in the supreme court after the sense and so this as applied the a thorny nothing was presented about the death and do you agree with that or disagree your honor i'm not sure if so it in my understanding of the us to provide a factual basis for someone who was twenty years old at the time the crime was committed when trying to apply case of the case law that was only applying to juveniles i mean i'm sorry your honor i don't see anything i thought i thought justice a well thought out something  to to provide any factual basis my understanding was that he did indeed provide factual basis but it these these cases miller roper graham cannot apply to someone  but by his own standards but in terms of that rd requirement that your honor mentioned the defendant also argues that post conviction counsel did not adequately defendant had told mr headland that he didn't care that the victim had a physically disabled wife and three children that offended was twenty years old was a twenty year old adult male who had recently been released from prison less than two months earlier  for armed robbery as such the constitutional violations that council asserted in the defendant's amended post conviction petition who are appropriate for an adult defendant the case law from the supreme court case of miller versus alabama is clear when it states roper and graham established that children are constitutionally different from adults for purposes of sentencing further our supreme court and people versus harris review juvenile sentencing jurisprudence and stated the supreme court has never extended its reasoning to young adults age eighteen or over rather the supreme court defines juveniles as individuals under eighteen the court went on to conclude that though age eighteen was not based primarily on scientific reaches research a line must be drawn and the supreme court also vacated people vs house and directed appellate courts to consider the effects of the court's opinion in harris and finally if your honour's judicial economy should be considered here as well where the defendant is asking this court to yes thank you your honor it's to have a couple pretty flames and then i'll answer any questions i just want to clarify the state of the law with regards to as constitutional challenges to life sentences for young and fifteen where it specifically considered an as applied constitutional challenge to a life sentence for a young adult and it said that that is a claim that needed to be raised as an as a claim and said that it c of yes there were several constitutional challenge as i said the th amendment cited the illinois proportionate penalties clause he also called it the rehabilitation class and he specifically said that the sentence w