Did the trial court err in failing to sanction the state for failing to timely provide Appellant with discovery essential to Appellant's case?

Did the trial court err in permitting the state to introduce evidence of other acts pursuant to 404(B) without providing Appellant with prior notice?

Did the trial court err in permitting the state to discuss the details of Appellant's other acts pursuant to 404(B)?

Did the trial court err in that the identification was improperly conducted and overly-suggestive and prejudicial to Appellant?

Did the trial court err in not providing an interpreter, as the Appellant is Vietnamese and could not understand anything at trial or any other court proceedings?

Whether the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals erred in failing to vacate the district court's judgment due to the state's failure to timely provide replaced discovery essential to the appellant's case, the admission of other acts evidence without prior notice, the admission of details of the appellant's prior bad acts, the failure to find the trial was fundamentally unfair due to improper and prejudicial conduct, the conviction for aggravated robbery against the manifest weight of the evidence, and the failure to provide an interpreter for the Vietnamese appellant who could not understand the court proceedings