continue committing crimes at an escalating pace. It is the tested theory of rehabilitation on appellant that sets this case apart from other challenges to a juvenile’s life sentence. There is record evidence to support appellant’s inability to rehabilitate— evidence that is usually not available upon an original sentencing proceeding. The trial court balanced the possibility of appellant’s rehabilitation with the safety of society in determining his sentence and was well within its discretion to do so. Accordingly, while appellant is correct that a true life sentence is typically reserved for juveniles guilty of more heinous crimes such as homicide, none of the cases cited by appellant involved a tested theory of rehabilitation. See Tate, 864 So.2d at 46-47, 5 82, 1286 (11th Cir.2000) (<HOLDING>)), a plain reading of the ICCPR does not
holding that the special relationship exception does not apply to the relationship between a student and a school holding that such provisions are valid holding that the clear language of the iccpr manifests that its provisions are to govern the relationship between an individual and his state holding that the hearing provisions of the ina supersede the provisions of the apa holding that attorneys should be disqualified where the substantial relationship test is met in order to assure that the confidentiality of the attorneyclient relationship and the loyalty between attorney and client are preserved