1. THE 4 TO 3 MAJORITY DECISION OF HE MICHIGAN SUPREME COURT FLOUTED U.S. SUPREME COURT PRECEDENT i .e. THE EVOLVING STANDARDS OF DECENCY ON PROPORTIONALITY REVIEW WHEN ADDRESSING WHETHER TO EXTEND THE PRINCIPLE OF MILLER V ALABAMA TO 18 TO 20 YEAR OLDS, BUT RATHER BASED ITS RULING ON ROPER V SIMMONS DECIDED IS YEARS AGO WHERE THE COURT DREW THE LINE AT 18 BECAUSE THAT IS WHERE SOCIETY DRAWS THE LINE AT FOR MANY REASONS

2. THE MICHIGAN SUPREME COURT DENIED PETITIONER HIS FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHT TO REDRESS HIS GRIEVANCES WHEN IT NULLIFIED THE MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

3. MR. MAN NING IS ENTITLED TO A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS WHERE THE 4 TO 3 MAJORITY DECISION OF THE MICHIGAN SUPREME COURT HAS DCIDED A FEDERAL QUESTION IN A WAY THAT CONLICTS WITH BOTH THE WASHINGTON AND ILLINOIS STATE SUPRMEE COURT ON WHETHER THE PRINCIPLE OF MILLER V ALABAMA SHOULD BE EXTENDED TO 18 TO 20 YEAR OLDS;

4. THE MANDATORY LIFE WITHOUT PAROLE SENTENCE MR. MANNING 'S RECEIVED FOR AN OFFENSE HE COMMITTED AS AN 18 YEAR OLD YOUTH IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL UNDER BOTH MICHIGANS 1963 CONSTITUTION AND THE U.S. CONSTITUTION

Whether the Michigan Supreme Court's decision to not extend the principle of Miller v. Alabama to 18-20 year olds conflicts with U.S. Supreme Court precedent on proportionality review and the evolving standards of decency