Mr. Bugie filed a section lugo-ill ca petition to corfense and ane appled Miller to an 18-year old. Mr. Burgse sk this court to anwer whether or not the court was in errar fer not applying sliler?

the petitiner submitted a psychalogical evaluation repart in fardation' at the time of the affense. the petitianer stades that disive evidene that n year dds brains are not flly developad The petitioner asts ths cout to arswer wbether or not its decisis in siller would apply to bugie as an 1syear od suffering erom mental retardation, who because of under development of his bain had the mind of a person weil under 18-years and Baberts v louisianna's requirenert that a person sentenced to death lie to "Ute without parole') mst be allowed to present mitigating evidence?

y) Dird srahan v Florida, extend Append v. New Jerey Did Grahanv Flerida and Eanind ve Harida, bar Burgies The without purale sentence for capital murder and aggravated rebbery without a determinatioo being made wbether Burgie. willed or intended to cause the death of wirght during the robbery?

Whether the petitioner's sentence violates the Eighth Amendment's prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment