I.
DID THE COURTS REFUSAL TO ACCEPT THE TIMELY 3.850 MOTION
FILING BECAUSE IT DID NOT IDENTIFY THE CIRCUIT COURT IN THE
CERTIFICATION OF SERVICE VIOLATE THE PETETIONER 'S 14th
AMENDMENT RIGHT TO DUE PROCESS OF LAW?

II.
DID THE CIRCUIT VIOLATE WELSH 'S AMENDMENT RIGHT TO
PETITION FOR A REDRESS OF HIS GRIEVANCES WHEN IT USED THE
LAW OF THE CASE DOCTRINE TO DETERMINE THE CLAIMS WERE
FRIVILOUS AND THREATEN PUNITIVE SANCTIONS EVEN THOUGH
THE MERITS WERE NEVER REACHED?

III.
DOES FLORIDA 'S CAPITAL SEXUAL BATTERY STATUTE FOR
ORAL/VAGINAL UNION VIOLATE THE 14th AMENDMENT UPON
PRESENTMENT OF INFORMATION RATHER THAN BY INDICTMENT?

IV.
DOES THE CAPITAL SEXUAL BATTERY STATUE 'S MANDATORY LIFE
WITHOUT PAROLE SENTENCE FOR FIRST TIME OFFENDERS
CONVICTED SOLELY ON THE UNCORROBORATED TESTIMONY OF THE
VICT M WITNESS VIOLATE THE 8th AMENDMENT?

V.
DOES THE EVIDENTIARY PROVISION OF FLORIDA 'S CAPITAL SEXUAL
BATTERY STATUTE RENDER THE LAW FACIALLY
UNCONSTITUTIONAL UNDER THE VOID FOR VAGUENESS DOCTRINE?

Did the court's refusal to accept the timely 3.850 motion filing because it did not identify the circuit court in the certification of service violate the petitioner's 14th Amendment right to due process of law?