Whether the Court of Crim. App. erred in deeming the ressential robbrery elements that thee pelitiorer was fouend gueilty of, in thee lesser included statutory vobbery Language alleged in the second count of the indictment "meere Serplusage" raise an vaviance evidence sufficiency issue?

Whether the court of crim. app raiseing an variance evidtnce suufficieney issue denied the petitioner his Dure process rights to be found guilty epon sufficient Proof. U.S.C.A. Congt. Amend.lt

Whther the lesser and greater statutory robbery offenses alleged in the second and third counts of the indictment constitete the Same statutary robtrery offense within the Meaning of the doubte jeopardy clause, liolating U.S.C.. Cons. Mend.9.4 And Tenn. CONgt: ART. I 9.10

Whether the lourt of crim ap. evved in deerming the essential element that defines robbery and A vobbery accomplishsed by the user of a deadly wreapon governed Under Statute Fenn.code Ann. 3a-2-5o1 rmere surplusagi Violacted Tenn, D. Crim. Prot. 9.26, Tenn code Ame. 4o-13-105 and Fed, Ruks crim. Proc, rule le. U.s.Cet. amend. 5, 18

Whether the petitioner's constitutional rights under the First, Fourth, and Fourteenth Amendments were violated