1.Whether the Florida Supreme Court's statutory
construction in Hurst v. State constitutes substantive law, and
if so, whether the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment
requires that this substantive law govern the law in existence at
the time of Mr. Ponticelli's alleged offense?

2.Whether the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth
Amendment permits State v. Poole to retroactively change
Florida's substantive law to Mr. Ponticelli's detriment?

3.Whether McKinney v. Arizona governs the retroactivity
of Hurst v. Florida and Hurst v. State as to Florida's capital
sentencing statute which is markedly different than Arizona's
statute?

4.Whether the Eighth Amendment requires a unanimous jury
verdict on the elements required for a capital defendant to be
sentenced to death?

Whether the Florida Supreme Court's statutory construction in Hurst v. State constitutes substantive law, and if so, whether the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment requires that this substantive law govern the law in existence at the time of Mr. Ponticelli's alleged offense?