1) Does SENTENCING A FIRST TIME OFFENDER WITHOUT HAS NO PRIOR CRIMINAL HISTORY TO 28 YEARS TO LIFE SEND A DANGEROUS MESSAGE TO THE PUBLIC AND FUTURE OFFENDERS THAT MURDER IS LESS SERIOUS, ESPECIALLY WITH A SENTENCE OF 48 YEARS ON CASE? Does THE SENTENCE THEREFORE ENCOURAGE FUTURE OFFENDERS TO MURDER THEIR VICTIMS TO AVOID THE GREATER SENTENCE?

2) PETITIONER Michael RISEN HOOVER WAS A DEPUTY SHERIFF WITH THE DEPARTMENT THAT CONDUCTED THE INVESTIGATION AND KNEW THE ACCUSER AND JUDGE. DID THIS PREVENT MR. MICHAEL HOOVER FROM RECEIVING A FAIR TRIAL AND SHOULD A CHANGE OF VENUE BEEN GIVEN?

3) DID THE TRIAL COURT JUDGE ERROR IN NOT ALLOWING ESSENTIAL INFORMATION ON MENTAL HEALTH MEDICATION THE ACCUSER WAS TAKING AND HER HISTORY OF HALLUCINATIONS AND DELUSION? THE JUDGE STATING WE WOULD NOT ALLOW THE SUBJECT OF HER MENTAL HEALTH TO BE BROACHED. DID THE VIOLATE MR. MISENHOVER'S RIGHT TO PRESENT AN ADEQUATE DEFENSE AND RIGHT TO A FAIR TRIAL.

4) DID THE PREVIOUS LOWER COURTS BASED IN NOT WEARING THIS CASE IN OVERTURNING THE CONVICTION AND IN DENYING PETITIONER A CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY.

Does sentencing a first-time offender who has no prior criminal history to 28 years to life send a dangerous message to the public and future offenders that murder is less serious than other crimes?