Whether the post-conviction court erred in concluding that the petitioners were not entitled to relief under the Court's opinion in Miller v. Alabama

No question identified. : Cu eselonby Plo sun ted TY) Do Charles vs. State, 4d MA. 1AO(A010) AAMins v5. Shale, 4aj md.434(aouy, _ pod abbvs. Shake Ha Md. ASH (6011) cahiclh concatad the propdiehy 4 CST eppocd Noir d'te._gpestions and Sucy iastiardins npgly to cases We te Mschos that became foal hepa) ten nase. Accasinas Wiett'sQed 2. 9 2 + ES Chacles Alkins aod Stab nogly eltoackinely fo cases that becoon a ALT) Did the %os}-Consicting cosct coed concude that De fons pot gesli galt sydeobject tod x te Covet CSL tppocd St A — ue. Oreo guestiva ark Me Me (hoes A007 46¢.a\ dad colicctly gueckucad hig Goavidiun « Mc Melohors tia) counsels foluse ta db seck Sy the (97 Lipeck Wore Oreo i Bening Wiolaled as TEETER EERE Stohe appeals couths oni Oita nad Suc Sashtackina gutelo95 cw Io x25 bone Qe cean¥ vinlaksons ua Ove. gas s dad shoul) x ser No 4 ma Federal \AUS 42 «em ~ | ee | \ a , So i