1. Can a Florida Law permit a trial court to exercise judicial discretion to make
new findings of fact of an escalating pattern of criminal conduct by the
preponderance of the evidence standard of proof to impose an upward departure
sentence beyond the sentencing guideline permitted range without violating a
criminal defendant 's Sixth and Fourteenth Amendment Constitutional Rights.

2. Has this Court 's Sixth and Fourteenth Amendment jurisprudence announced in
its Apprendi v. New Jersey line of cases over the last two decades, effectively
eroded the underpinnings of Almendarez-Torres, 118 S. Ct. 1219 (1998), Stare
Decisis vitality, and viability, rendering the fact of a prior conviction an element of
the offense that must be found by a jury beyond a reasonable doubt standard of
proof?

3. Did the United States District Court of Florida and the Eleventh Circuit Court of
Appeals improperly apply the Ritcher presumption to Mr. Thompson 's Habeas
Claims of constitutional violations; when those courts failed to look through the
appellate decision to the last reasoned opinion to the state post conviction court, to
make a determination de novo whether Mr. Thompson constitutional claims were
properly adjudicated on the merits.

Can a Florida Law permit a judicial discretion-upward-departure sentence beyond sentencing-guidelines without violating Sixth-Amendment Fourteenth-Amendment