conduct is indisputable, and a tactical explanation for the conduct is inconceivable.” Id. Here, we cannot perceive any strategic or tactical reason for trial counsel’s failure to challenge the sufficiency of the State’s premeditation evidence. Barnes’ defense to the charge of first-degree murder was that he did not kill the victim and, indeed, was not even in Sanford on the day of the murder. That defense would have been equally applicable to a charge of second-degree murder. Furthermore, given our conclusion that the State’s evidence failed to establish premeditation, the prejudice to Barnes is obvious. The failure to seek acquittal on the greater offense caused Barnes to be sentenced to mandatory life imprisonment without the possibility of parole. See Monroe, 191 So.3d at 403-04 (<HOLDING>). Finally, “it would be a waste of judicial
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 holding that mandatory life imprisonment without parole for those under the age of eighteen at the time of their crimes violates eighth amendment holding that sentences imposing mandatory life imprisonment without the possibility of parole on individuals who committed their crimes when under the age of 18 violates the eighth amendment to the united states constitution holding that a defendant impermissibly sentenced to life imprisonment without the possibility of parole in violation of miller should be awarded a new sentencing hearing to be conducted in accordance with the provisions of nc gen stat  15a134019b 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