(LT)
MISS isscppi, Colorado And Tuiinious All opanva thad ia Aa indeed men charg ing SEXsn|
Battery , the Me Hod! of Achieving Serun] Penetratan is irrélevant, mere Sucplosage én the
tadecl ment and not required fo be proven by the Prosecdion. LButL, Misscasi pps' ehaye's
muHtiple Sexual Battery ebnrges in an sadied ment, out of the Sume set of tncts Mand Are
idendienl, Lexcept I foc the "methed of Achieviay Sexuul Penetratan.
Does the velade v dedendant's U5. aad State Constitutional eaght pretechan nonanst clouble
Teopardy or 55 f covered ander ther stand set Beth » Block burger?

(IZ)
This Hon. Court m UL ve Cotton $35 vis. 629 (200) culed that, "delecds nm Subject -Ma Hey
jurisdeed ion can Laver] be forfeited or waved." (emphasiee added). Ltachim ot "actual
Innocence because the glade fa'led to charge A erime Cognizu ble Under nw, comoving Gidieton
from the Convicd ing court," iS legnlly funded, Ls a deterdants Constiftann rights vr bated
when the State Supreme Court "heme haed> the clam wae stated 14 paged "no Arg vable bass,
luithoul opinion or east las avther'y 1 Sup Port ity dechran ? * :

(1)
Ls the defendant heang Forced 4s Serve G0 gems lnendetory Moré Phan his
Sentencaag order [gsciten I, cefleds 2 Woladay hic eghts ta Bgent protectin, eve! pad onusunl
puatshmeat aud Doe Drocess of law?

Whether the defendant's constitutional rights against double jeopardy are violated when multiple identical sexual battery charges are brought based on the same set of facts, except for the method of achieving sexual penetration