to assist his attorney, the presence of any drug and/or alcohol problems, his mental health history, and his potential for rehabilitation. See id. at 2464, 2467-69. This is not an exhaustive list. Because the Miller decision was so recently decided, there has been no advocacy by the parties regarding individualized sentencing for juveniles convicted of homicide offenses. As such, on remand, we anticipate that the trial court will order briefs by the Commonwealth and Knox, and accept briefs from their respective amici, if any, on this issue. As the United States Supreme Court has expressly stated that a mandatory sentence of life in prison without the possibility of parole is unconstitutional as applied to juvenile offenders, Whitaker is overruled. See Whitaker, 30 A.3d at 1197-98 (<HOLDING>); supra n. 20. Likewise, to the extent that the
holding that a mandatory sentence of life in prison without the possibility of parole for a juvenile convicted of firstdegree murder is not cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the united states and pennsylvania constitutions holding that the imposition of a true life sentence on a minor convicted of felony murder was cruel and unusual based on the specific circumstances surrounding the offense holding that a mandatory life sentence without the possibility of parole for possession of 650 or more grams of cocaine is so grossly disproportionate that it violates the prohibition of cruel or unusual punishment in const 1963 art 1  16 holding cruel and unusual punishment complaint not preserved holding that a sentence of life in prison with the possibility of parole as applied to a threetime offender is constitutional