In 2012 this Count ruled in Miller v. Alabama 567 U.S. that it is Unconstitutional to sentence a juvenile to life without the possibility of parole. In 2012 the state of Michigan did not agree that those who were juveniles pre-Miller should be given relied under Miller therefore decided not to uphold this Court decision. In 2016 this Court again revisited Miller decision in Montgomery v. Louisiana 136 S.Ct 718 where it made Miller retroactive to those who were juvenile 's at the time of their offenses.

The question presented is whether a juvenile filing for his relief on January 23, 2016 is entitled to the 1 year statute of limitation and equitable tolling under Montgomery v. Louisiana and though he was prevented by the state of Michigan. Petitioner believes that he should be granted a Miller Hearing as he was under the exclusive jurisdiction of the juvenile court.

In 1993 Petitionee was 16 years old and committed to the juvenile court until hi's 21 birthday foe some juvenile enumeeated offenses. In 1995 Petitionee was 19 yeaes of age and still a juvenile undee the Historical Laws and Statutes of 1995 MCL 712A.2 On Novembee 24, 1995 Petitionee was bound ovee feom 36th dlstelct couet without a juvenile walvee being Issued. On December 4, 1995 Petitionee counselor waived Petitioner's juvenile dispositional hearing which acted as an adult Preliminary Hearing foe the juvenile.

The question presented is whether a juvenile under the exclusive jurisdiction at the tike of his offense should be entitled to a Miller Hearing under both Miller v. Alabama and Montgomery v. Louisiana. This Petitioner's 6th, 8th, and 14th Amendment of the United States Constitution has been violated as this Court has the ability to correct where injustice of the CONSTITUTION is not being upheld.

In 1995 this Petitioner was a juvenile under the exclusive jurisdiction of the juvenile court. Counsel was ineffective by waiving Petitioner as a juvenile into general court for a homicide and an attempted homicide. Petitioner was under the exclusive jurisdiction of the juvenile court after being committed at the age of 16 in 1993 for some enumerated crimes. After being committed Petitioner was kept under the child protection order and fell under the law of Michigan Court Rules 6.900 as stated: Rules Applicable To Juveniles Charged with Life Offenses Subject To The Jurisdiction Of District, Circuit And Recorder's Court, entitled to a mandatory juvenile hearing to determine whether he should be sentenced as a juvenile or an adult. Yet, Petitioner attorney was ineffective for waiving this vital hearing. Petitioner was later convicted of these offenses and now is serving an unconstitutional sentence to life without the possibility of parole. Since the tine of both Miller and Montgomery Petitioner is now serving an Cruel and Unusual Punishment. Petitioner now seek justice from this Court by not allowing a constitutional issue to be denied. By counsel waiving Petitioner juvenile hearing this prevented Petitioner ability to allocate witness, or being waiver on lesser included offense, also Petitioner could have remained in juvenile court.

The question presented is whether a juvenile's mandatory life without parole sentence is invalid and may be challenged now because the ineffective assistance of trial counsel waived Petitioner juvenile dispositional hearing MCL 712A.4(4); whereas the best interest is for the juvenile.

Whether a juvenile filing for relief on January 23, 2016 is entitled to the 1 year statute of limitation and equitable tolling under Montgomery v. Louisiana and though he was prevented by the state of Michigan