WHETHER PETITIONER WAS DENIED DUE PROCESS OF LAW* WHEN
THE STATE COURT COURT SENTENCED HIM TO SPEND 30 YEARS TO LIFE
IN STATE PRISON, UNDER A "THREE-STRIKES" LAW THEORY THAT WAS
SUBSEQUENTLY CLARIFIED FIVE YEARS AFTER HIS SENTENCE BY
PEOPLE V. VARGAS (2014)59 Cal.4th 635, WHICH WOULD BENEFICIALLY
MANDATE A NON-LIFE
( CLARIFI,CAT.iQN^IS APPLIED RETROACTIVELY UNDER STATE LAW (-See
HICKS V. OKLAHOMA (1980)447 U.S. 343, 346; 14th AMEN DMENT'TO
THE U.S. CONSTITUTION) ?

WHETHER PETITIONER WAS DENIED EQUAL PROTECTION OF THE LAW
WHEN THE POST-CONVICTION STATE COURTS ARBITRARILY DENIED HIS
STATE HABEAS CLAIMS, CLASSIFYING PETITIONER AS A "THIRD-STRIKER"
UNDERRAN ADMITTEDLY ILLEGAL "THREE-STRIKES" THEORY THAT WAS
SUBSEQUENTLY CLARIFIED FIVE YEARS AFTER HIS ORIGINAL
( LI FE)~SENTENCE~BY ~PE0PL'E~V7 —VARGAS~ SUPRA~~AUSO~IGNORING~' ~
THAT THE RES JUDICATA DOCTRINE DID NOT BAR HABEAS
RELIEF BECAUSE THE LIBERTY-INTEREST CREATED BY THE
COMPELLED RESENTENCING VARGAS DECISION CHANGED THE LAW, __
(See HICKS V. OKLAHOMA (1980)447 U.S. 343, 346; 14th AMENDMENT TO
THE U.S. CONSTITUTION) ? *— ^

WHETHER UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THIS CASE, SHOULD THIS
SUPREME COURT EXERCISE ITS "G.V.R." DISCRETION, REMANDING
THIS CASE BACK TO THE STATE COURT SO THAT THEY PROPERLY
APPLIED THE CLARIFIED "THREE-STRIKES" LAW THAT VARGAS CREATED,
AS TO AVERT A MISCARRIAGE OF JUSTICE WHERE PETITIONER SITS IN
STATE PRISON TO AN ILLEGAL 30 YEARS TO LIFE SENTENCE
(See LORDS LANDING VILLAGE V. CONTINENTAL INS. CO.(1997)
520 U.S. 893, 896)?

whether-petitioner-was-denied-due-process-of-law