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

question presented fs whether a juvenile filing for his zelfef on January 23, 2016 is entitled to the 1 year statute of linftation and equitable tolling under Montgomezy v. Louisiana and though he was pmevented by the state of Michigan. Petitionez believes that he should be granted a Miller Hearing as he was under the exclusive jurisdiction of the juvenile court. (See Pet. APP. J ) cd a { In 1993 Petitioner was 16 years old and committed to the juvenile couct unt?l ; his 21 bicthday for some juvenile enumezated offenses. (See Pet. APP.H ) In 1995 Petitioners was 19 years of age and still a juvenile under the Historical Laws and Statutes of 1995 MCL 712A.2 (See Pet. APP. § ) On November 24, 1995 Petitioners was bound over from 36th district court without a juvenile waiver being fssued. (See Pet. APP. A) On December 4, 1995 Petitioner counselor waived Petfttonex's juvenile dispositional hearing which acted as an adult Preliminary Hearing for the juvenile. The question presented is whether a juvenile under the exclusive jurisdiction at the time of his offense should be entitled to a Miller Heaging under both Miller v. Alabama and Montgomezy v. Louisiana. This Petitioner's 6th, 8th, and 14th Amendment of the United States Constitution has been violated as this Court has the abflity to convect whese injustice of the CONSTITUTION is not being upheld. 1? {i . In 1995 this Petitioner was a juvenile undez the exclusive jurisdiction of the juventle court. Counsel was fneffective by waiving Petitioner as a juvenile into : general coust fos a homicide and an attempted homicide. Petitfoner was under the exclusive juctsdiction of the juvenile cout after being committed at the age of 16 in 1993 for some enumezated crimes. After being committed Petitioner was kept undes the child psotection onder and fell under the law of Michigan Couzt Rules 6.900 as stated: Rules Applicable To Juvenfles Charged With Life Offenses Subject To The Junisdiction Of Distzict, Ciecuit And Recorder's Court. Petitioner was ent?tled to a mandatory juvenile hearing to determine whether he should be sentenced as a juvenile o an adult. Yet, Petitioner attomney was ineffective for waiving this vital heaging. Petitiones was later convicted of these offenses and now is serving an unconstitutional sentence to 1ffe without the possibilfty of pagole. Since the time of both Millex and Montgomery Petitioner is now sexving 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 pzevented Petitioner abflity to allocate witness, or being waiver on lesser included offense, also Petftfoneg could have remained fn juvenile court. The question psesented is whether a juvenile's mandatory life without parole sentence is invalid and may be challenged now because the ineffective assistance of tgial counsel waived Petitioner juvenfle dispositional hearing MCL 71 2A.4(4); Whereas the best intevest is for the juvenfle. Counsel's duty was to protect and properly infosm and instsuct the juvenile. This peocess would also had presenved Petitioners juisdiction issue, where Petftfoner was under the chfld protection onder MCR 6.900 before he was bound over jmpsoperly as an adult (See Pet. APP. A). Petitioners juvenfle judge and legal guasdian should have been notified. It took seventeen days later before juvenile judge was notified of Petitioner's amvest. (See Pet. APP. A )Cleacly this was not only ineffective assistance of counsel see. Stwickland v. Washington 466 U.S. 668 but a miscarriage of justice took place. Petittones 6th and 14th Amendment has been violated. ay yw . INDEX OF AUTHORITIES . Allen v. Stovall 156 F. Supp. 24 791-10 : Armstong 575 US at 135 S.Ct. 1378-10 ,~ Bender v. williamspost Anea Sch Dist. 475 us 534~14 ; Buady v. Masyland 373 us 83-41 Cacp v. Michigan 136 S.ct. 1355 ~!0 Cruz v. United States, 2018 us. Dist. Lexis 52924°1% : Ccuz v. Untted State of