1) APPELLANT OFFENSES WERE COMMITTED IN 2004, BUT, IN 2006 PENAL CODE § 667.6(d) WAS AMENDED AND INCREASED THE PUNISHMENT WHILE CHANGING THE VIOLATING SECTION VIOLATE THE EX POST FACTO CLAUSE OF THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION FOR WHICH CHANGED THE VIOLATION SECTIONAL THEREIN C67.6 (d) FROM PC 220 TO 261 THAT WAS THE LEGAL BEFORE ITS EFFECTIVE DATE?

2.) DID THE PROSECUTOR OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA AND THE STATE OFFICIAL OFFICE OF, OAKLAND, ALAMEDA COUNTY COMMIT FRAUD AGAINST THE STATE COURT AND THE DEFENDANT WHEN THE STATE OFFICIAL AND ITS OFFICE CHARGED THE DEFENDANT WITH IN THE CHARGING INFORMATION AND PROSECUTING SUPPLEMENT OF PROBABLE CAUSE, THAT SAID DEFENDANT DID VIOLATE PENAL CODE SECTION 667.6 (d), DUE TO A VIOLATION OF PC 261 (A)(C) THE OFFENSE, A PERSON WOULD HAVE TO BE CHARGED WITH VIOLATING PENAL CODE SECTION 220 TO QUALIFY UNDER THE THEN EXISTED FORMER LAW CHARGED UNDER THE NEW LAW AS AMENDED IN 667.6(d) ALMOST TWO YEARS BEFORE IT'S EFFECTIVE DATE OF NOVEMBER 8, 2006 FOR WHICH DID INCREASE THE PUNISHMENT FOR THE OFFENSE?

3.) DEFENDANT'S TRIAL AND APPEAL ATTORNEY INEFFECTIVE WHEN BOTH FAIL TO RECOGNIZE THE EX POST FACTO VIOLATION WHEN A REASONABLE CAUSE THE DATE OF THE COMMITTED OFFENSES TO PROTECT THE DEFENDANT?

Whether the retroactive application of California Penal Code Section 667(c)(2) violates the Ex Post Facto Clause of the U.S. Constitution