1) WAS PETITIONER SMILEY WRONGFULLY CHARGED, CONVICTED AND SENTENCED WITH BREAKING A SPECIFIED STATUTE, (PC:607, GCD)), WHICH CHANGED THE LEGAL CONSEQUENCE OF ACTS COMPLETED BEFORE ITS EFFECTIVE DATE (SB.118, EFF. 9-20-06), WHEN THE EXISTING LANGUAGE ON THE DATE OF THE OFFENSE PROVIDED THAT THE PERSON HAD CONVICTED OF VIOLATING SECTION 220, WHILE PROVIDED THAT THE PERSON HAS BEEN CONVICTED PREVIOUSLY OF VIOLATING SECTION 220, FOR WHICH SMILEY HAS NOT?

2) DID THE SENTENCING COURT ERRED IN IMPOSING THE ONE STRIKE STATUTE OF PC SECTION 667.61, WHEN SMILEY WAS CONVICTED OF ONE KIDNAPPING COUNT?

3) DID THE FEDERAL COURT FAIL TO CONSIDER SMILEY'S CLAIMS WHEN HE MET THE TIME LINE AS HIS HABEAS PETITION WAS PENDING IN 2016 AND TOLLED IN PERIOD BETWEEN LOWER COURT JUDGMENT AND TIMELY FILING OF HIS NORMAL CRITERIA FOR A SUBSTANTIVE RULE, WHEN THEY ALTER THE RANGE OF?

4) WAS PETITIONER SMILEY WRONGFULLY CHARGED, CONVICTED AND SENTENCED WITH BREAKING A SPECIFIED STATUTE, (PC:607, GCD)), WHICH CHANGED THE LEGAL CONSEQUENCE OF ACTS COMPLETED BEFORE ITS EFFECTIVE DATE (SB.118, EFF. 9-20-06), WHEN THE EXISTING LANGUAGE ON THE DATE OF THE OFFENSE PROVIDED THAT THE PERSON HAD CONVICTED OF VIOLATING SECTION 220, WHILE PROVIDED THAT THE PERSON HAS BEEN CONVICTED PREVIOUSLY OF VIOLATING SECTION 220, FOR WHICH SMILEY HAS NOT?

Did the California Supreme Court err in imposing the one strike statute of Penal Code section 667.61, when Souley was convicted of only one kidnapping count pursuant to Penal Code section 209, when the kidnapping enhancement provisions were effectively relied on as one of its special circumstances?