WHETHER PETITIONER WAS DENIED HIS RIGHT TO DUE PROCESS OF LAW; WHEN THE TRIAL COURT FAILED TO FOLLOW THE LAW OF THE CASE DOCTRINE FROM A PREVIOUS APPEAL IN THE SAME CASE.

WHETHER PETITIONER WAS DENIED HIS RIGHT TO DUE PROCESS OF LAW; WHEN THE COURT RULED THAT THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN HIS MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL DID NOT CONSTITUTE NEW EVIDENCE. THIS SAME EVIDENCE WAS ALREADY CONSIDERED NEWLY DISCOVERED IN A PRIOR COURT OF APPEALS DECISION IN THEIR REVERSE AND REMAND IN THE SAME CASE.

WHETHER PETITIONER WAS DENIED HIS RIGHT TO DUE PROCESS OF LAW; WHEN HE WAS NOT AWARDED A NEW TRIAL BASED ON THE FACT, THAT HE HAD PROVEN THAT HE WAS ACTUALLY AN INNOCENT PERSON.

WHETHER THE MISCONDUCT BY THE PROSECUTING ATTORNEY REQUIRES THAT PETITIONER SHOULD BE AWARDED A NEW TRIAL.

Whether petitioner was denied his right to due process when the trial court failed to follow the law of the case doctrine from a previous appeal, denied his motion for new trial based on newly discovered evidence, and denied him a new trial despite proving his actual innocence