With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". the juvenile’s potential for rehabilitation; and (14) any other relevant factor related to the juvenile’s youth. See generally Commonwealth v. Knox. We recognize that some of the factors may not apply to a particular juvenile’s case and that some of the factors may overlap. Nevertheless, we believe that providing the trial court with guidance on individualized sentencing for juveniles charged with capital murder comports with the guidelines of Miller. Conclusion The juveniles have failed to show that the holding in Miller requires this Court to dismiss the capital-murder indictments against them. Accordingly, their petitions for a writ of mandamus are denied. 1120140 — PETITION DENIED. 1120202 — PETITION DENIED. STUART, PARKER, MAIN, WISE, and BRYAN, J 012]-P.3d - (Col.Ct.App.2012) (<HOLDING>); In re Morgan, 713 F.3d 1365 (11th Cir.2013)

A: holding that prejudice was obvious where counsels failure to seek acquittal on greater offenses caused defendant to be sentenced to mandatory life imprisonment without possibility of parole
B: holding that defendants affirmative acts of driving minor to robbery helping minor enter the building and serving as a lookout for the minor warranted sentencing enhancement
C: holding that because minor defendant was mandatorily sentenced to life imprisonment without parole and because his case was still pending on direct appeal when miller was released the minor defendant was entitled to a new sentencing hearing
D: holding that minor defendant was not entitled to a writ of prohibition directing the trial court to dismiss his capitalmurder indictments where he argued that only statutorily authorized sentences of death and life imprisonment without parole had been declared unconstitutional but the florida courts had established a valid sentencing option under miller
C.