WHETHER THE STATE OF OREGON'S IMPOSITION OF A TRUE LIFE
SENTENCE UNDER A THREE STRIKES SENTENCING RECIDIVIST ENHANCEMENT STATUTE IS A MISCARRIAGE OF JUSTICE - DUE TOFACTUAL AND LEGAL INNOCENCE OF THE SENTENCE - BECAUSE MR.EASTER DID NOT HAVE THE REQUISITE QUALIFYING PREDICATECONVICTIONS.

WHETHER THE MISCARRIAGE OF JUSTICE/INNOCENCE EXCEPTIONS TO
PROCEDURAL AND LIMITATION BARS APPLY TO SUCH NON-CAPITALSENTENCING ERROR WHICH CAUSED MR. EASTER'S SENTENCE TOEXCEED THE PERMISSIBLE STATUTORY PENALTY TO EXCUSE THEDEFAULTS AND REACH THE MERITS OF MR. EASTER'S CLAIMS.

WHETHER, ALTERNATIVE TO THE MISCARRIAGE OF JUSTICE/INNOCENCE
EXCEPTION, MR. EASTER IS ENTITLED TO MERITS REVIEW BECAUSE HE ISENTITLED TO EQUITABLE TOLLING DUE TO THE EXTRAORDINARYCIRCUMSTANCES OF HIS TRIAL AND POST-CONVICTION COUNSEL'S FAILURETO UNDERSTAND THAT HE WAS NOT QUALIFIED FOR A LIFE SENTENCE ANDTHAT THE CONSTITUTION PREVENTS A WAIVER OF COLLATERALCHALLENGES RELATED TO INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL WHICHCAUSED HIS FAILURE TO FILE TIMELY.

Whether the state of Oregon's imposition of a true life sentence under a three strikes sentencing recidivist enhancement statute is a miscarriage of justice