WAS APPELLANT DENIED DUE PROCESS BY THE COURTS SUA SPONTE DECISION, PURSUANT TO CPL DIVISION TO CONSIDER THE ERROR INCLUDED CHARGE OF BURGLARY IN THE SECOND DEGREE ANY LESSOR INCLUDED OFFENSES APPELLANT ORIGINAL INDICTMENT?

DID LOWER JUDGE ABUSE DISCRETION BY ADDING LESSOR INCLUDED OFFENSE OF BURGLARY IN THE SECOND DEGREE P.L. 140.25(2) AFTER DISMISSING APPELLANTS COUNTS OF BURGLARY IN THE FIRST DEGREE PLS 140.30, 4) FOR INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE ON THE EVE OF APPELLANTS NON-JURY TRIAL BEFORE SUMMATIONS?

DO COURTS MUST FILE ANY LESSOR INCLUDED OFFENSES TO GRAND JURY BEFORE DISMISSAL OF ORIGINAL INDICTMENT?

DO COURTS HAVE DISCRETION TO ADD A NEW COUNT WITHOUT MOTION TO COURTS NOR NOTICE TO DEFENSE COUNSEL?

DID COURTS ABUSE DISCRETION BY CHARGING APPELLANT WITH COUNT OF BURGLARY IN THE SECOND DEGREE P.L.S 140.25(2) ON THE EVE OF APPELLANTS TRIAL AND DID IT IN FACT PREJUDICE APPELLANTS RIGHTS IN ANY WAY?

DID COURTS ABUSE AUTHORITY BY NOT SPECIFYING NEW CHARGE AND SPECIFYING AND CHARGING APPELLANT WITH ALL ELEMENTS REQUIRED BY LAW IN ORDER FOR CHARGE AND CONVICTION?

IS IT NOT APPELLANTS CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO STAND TRIAL FOR A CHARGE AND CRIME VOTED ON BY GRAND JURY AND ALL ELEMENTS MUST BE INCLUDED IN CHARGE?

IS IT NOT A CRIME HE DID NOT COMMIT? NOR BE CHARGED WITH THE ELEMENTS OF CHARGE WHICH COURTS ALLEGED APPELLANT COMMITTED AND VIOLATED SUCH LAW?

WAS IT MALICIOUS PROSECUTION TO ADD NEW CHARGE AFTER DISMISSAL OF CHARGES IN ORIGINAL INDICTMENT?

IS IT ILLEGAL AND MALICIOUS PROSECUTION WHEN PROSECUTION SUBMIT FALSE D.N.A EVIDENCE?

IS IT NOT ILLEGAL FOR APPELLANT TO STAND TRIAL ON ONE COUNT OF BURGLARY IN THE SECOND DEGREE P.L 140.25(2) THAT WAS NEVER ADDED TO APPELLANTS ORIGINAL INDICTMENT BEFORE COURTS DISMISSED BOTH COUNTS APPELLANT WAS INDICTED ON BY GRAND JURY BEFORE SUMMATIONS AND ON THE EVE OF APPELLANTS TRIAL?

IS APPELLANTS CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS TO DUE PROCESS VIOLATED BY COURTS FAILURE TO SUBMIT ANY LESSOR INCLUDED OFFENSES TO APPELLANTS ORIGINAL INDICTMENT BEFORE DISMISSING APPELLANTS INDICTMENT?

Whether the lower court erred in dismissing the petitioner's claims related to due process, double jeopardy, and malicious prosecution