WheTher itis a violaTion of due process
where The evidence is insufficient To Support The jury
Verdict of a greater offense; here
AggravaTed AssaulT,
on The lesser included,
but a direct-remand for SenTencing
because The defendant is
provides no lesser senTence
indicted as a habiTual offender under Section 99-19.83
and will receive The Same Sentence of life wiThout
parole, if The habiTual allegations are proven.

wheTher once
The grand jury close to indict
The
had no auThoMoffiTe
SecTion
99-19-81,
judge
riTy, upon motion of The sTate, To amend the indictmenT To habiTual under SecTion 99-19-83 and Such was
denial
of Dve Process of Law.

WheTher The insTrucTions on Self-defense
failed To Tell The jury
That what
MoffiTe was defend.
ing againsT was The isolation, Sensory
depravaTion
and resTricted conTacT of a Soicide cell.

wheTher
defendant was denied
a fair Trial
and doe
process, of law when the
judge
injected
advocate
himself
for The prosecotion in
having
as an
answer of"I don'it recall" did
MoffiTe
agree That his
not mean he was denying
The subject The STale was
quesTioning
him about.

wheTher
a new Trial should have been
granted
because of
The failure of The sTaTe To
!por to suomiisal hofu!
disclose The Throat
Dowdy
ThaT The defendant would not
To
guaranTee
be denied
due process, The right of Confrontation
and a
fair Trial.

WheTher iT was
a
violation of due proSIX:
cess and a fair Trial on SenTencing, if The SenTence
To life without parole or early release is not reversed
because of insufficient proof of The elements of fact
required for habiTual SenTencing. If The court concludes
The insufficiency only is found in The length of Time
served of at least one year for The life senTence
under
SEcTion 99-19-83,
Then The case should be reunder The lesser non-violent
manded
for Sentencing
habiTual offender
provisions of Section 99-19-81.

WheTher it was a violation of due pro
cess
for
The dwelling house burglary To be characTerized
senTencing onder
"Violent crime"
a
Section
99-19-83 where iT was
not a Violent
crime at The Time of MoffiTe's
guilTy plea in 2002.

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