1. Does California Create a Liberty Interest to "Youthful-Offender's" when it Enacted
Legislation in Response/Remedy of a United States Supreme Court Decision (Miller
v. Alabama , (2012) 132 S^Ct. 2254, 2496) whem the State Law removes the "juvenile"
desigation recognizing the larger class as defined/decided in that Supreme Court
Decision by the Medical/Psychological Professional as concluding upon completion
of a youth's 25th year?

2. Does a State Habeas Corpus Petitioner make a Valid Constitutional challenge to the
fact that there are no reasoned sentencing schematic which delineates the differ
ences in culpability for those tried uhder adult law
when the enacted legislation (embracing Miller directly in its language) does not
return the "youth-offender" to the sentencing court for consideration of an age
appropriate sentecing consideration as the Miller Court instructed the State's must
do, and giving broad Sentencing Court Discretion in age appropriate sentencing
matters and not necessarily having to exact life sentences?

Does California create a liberty interest when it enacted legislation in response to Miller v. Alabama?