(N) Do this Court's rulings in Apprend: v. New Jersey,530U.S. 466 (2000) and Alleyne v. United States 577 U.S.99 (2013) require that when a state statute creates a tiered sentencing schemeand where evidence and instructions are qiven that qualify for more than one fier a special verdict ferm must be given before a court is permitted to sentence a defendant to an increased minimum sentence above the lowest tier?

(B) Contrary to United States Circuits are state courts correct in holding that a defendant is required to object prior to sentencing to a qeneral verdict or jury instruetions. thus assistingin his prosecution. in order to preserve an Allemne error for review?

(C) When state statutes define an attempt as a substantial step in furtherance of a crime and an alleqation that a crime was completed is not a defense to an attempt. do alleqations of a completed crime preclude a jury from forming a rational basis for a finding of quitt of attempt?

(D) Is a jury preluded from findina quitt of crimes which are fairly included in the alegations presernted to it?

(E) when state statute prescribes a downward departure in mirimum mandatory sertence if a court finds such departure is in the interests of justice and a state supreme court interprets this statute based on the United States Supreme Court's proportionality analysis announced in Solem v. Helms 463 U.S.277 (1983). what should this interest of justice analysis consist of?

Whether Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000) and Alleyne v. United States, 570 U.S. 99 (2013) require that when a single statute creates a tiered sentencing scheme, where and adverse evidence and instructions are given, that a majority, not just one, of the facts that increase the statutory maximum sentence must be found by a jury before a court can sentence a defendant to an increased maximum sentence