I.
WHETHER A CONVICTION ON A CHARGE CONTAINING AN ESSENTIAL ELEMENT NOT CHARGED IN THE INFORMATION IS A "DUE PROCESS" VIOLATION.

II.
WHETHER THE DOUBLE JEOPARDY CLAUSE PROHIBITS FURTHER PROSECUTION ON BURGLARY CHARGE WHERE THE JUDGE RULED EVIDENCE INSUFFICIENT TO PROPERLY SUPPORT THE SPECIFICALLY CHARGED UNDERLYING FELONY AGGRAVATED BATTERY AND GRANTED AN ACQUITTAL.

III.
WHETHER THE APPELLATE COURT AND THE POSTCONVICTION COURTS HAVE APPARENTLY OVERLOOKED THE FUNDAMENTALLY DEFECTIVE INFORMATION AND RESULTING CONVICTION AND SENTENCE AND RELIEF SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, WHEN PETITIONER FIRST RAISED ISSUE ON DIRECT APPEAL.

IV.
WHETHER MID-TRIAL "MODIFICATION OF ESSENTIAL ELEMENTS" IS PER SE, 5TH AMENDMENT, REVERSIBLE ERROR.

V.
WHETHER THE UNDERLYING FELONY IS [A] PART OF THE CRIME CHARGED, AND WITHOUT THE UNDERLYING FELONY THE CHARGE CANNOT STAND.

VI.
WHETHER THE ESSENTIAL REQUIREMENT OF LAW AFFORDED THE DEFENDANT A CHANCE TO REPLY TO THE STATE'S RESPONSE, INSTEAD OF THE COURT ISSUING ITS DENIAL, ONE DAY AFTER STATE'S RESPONSE.

Whether the underlying felony is part of the crime charged to create a predicate felony that charge, cannot stand