1) Whether A violation of FEABONER'S Constitutional RAF to due eocess Shoulel Stind Ww Florida of the ApplirAble CAw 0F thE Unites Sb4tES SUpREnE Phe Mamn€ } tim Anil place Shall be Strbse) ON CAE booly OF thE Counts OF CAE Noite? meEst fat was not ©

2) Whether A miscreengé OF Juste DAS O0CUucRE ay) Flokiola oF tAE Applitable law OF thE linn $0 States SuypkEmE Court aval PAE SHALE OF Elona that REQUIRES that hE MAME j brn Aol LACE Shall bE State! © ThE booly oF thE Counts OR HAE Tadhittrent that ws pot to have EW Heel! fet tose to REEL (a) 3. 8008), 3,850 Arie Colla tenal Appeals Fog Reur Ew oF PAE Const¥utroal GReokS 2

Whether the lower court erred in its interpretation and application of the relevant constitutional and statutory provisions?