Whether the indictment was defected in count 1 and two under See - on pale coun) cauck practice The in dickmeng fail +o e Cu 6 Spee ic dake and lace oF ae ed ; ed p € i) CRIM iValact dhat aes Wie aileg holave fake nN place two geak ago w hich mst H a BS) dhe : ' ce yacrt Ne) petitioner, ccUSEe © COUR Show Mg pre jadrce taword tne bo, whethee the indschment showing prcavace foward pebtoner £o%, ha b itual ofrendee wha not Stx mI iW the chicken b WUTESMA Geushethu amation Hled to dismiss Lheindicdment @3 Violadi We OCIS Conshiubional Right OF AUe [10 CeS5 OF the law, because We grand Tory Echo Was preceded ty an akest awbicke 3- ee 20-21 1M prop ck fndictment under Sth eth amendment consbtukional @ ved

D Whether Lhoevidence {9 in safFictent Le support the v edict The Stare produce) msuPFiciens evsdence Lo Sus tard guilt verdict of undca mnr§ ey ond areasonablé doubt on each o€ the comnrs pecause the state wos unable bs pres enk whysical Wi ogcal evi Gace oF Rape. such as PNA evidence ond ire Shed witnesses Wy che nok CR ediOle j A rook

EWhethew dhe trial Judge admitted Faise Les Mimony oF AN Ww. Ness es into cuidente that Violated duc process of WW® Law of Mncconst {ution nde Fk dh amendment and (OH avacncdment and unde gle 12, unded IWS BE OF eviduice OF bhe Pebk<o nee Right.und ek aKt? cle % ~ Se Le ~ CONSE Lakional etho oF ducipre cess and awhi he 3 5% eh Fine V3 clence (WAUERIC Ent Lo Sayyp ond Lhe MWdICk cH

+ whethee, Wout ent counse |. the Pedi bionet athe ¥ Wes Fala ware thepe eruraks ond wot attack va (chi y oF these allegation negin ine (© my oVis on. became Fam -4y meas Lo dre Law ms aule oF ppoFesoi onal conduct ond otto' eliens pre vited sn devol Malu OF CMAN Hera Ced WRE asia tdnce OF counse! © Own articlts g- Se 16 cons fikUkional ERROK, ;

Gunebhee Jury tin sk ruclion was Eicnek undch Kule [95 undlet miss Ce ad (7 -3-65 section] dury ine fruc tion Fels ef +to stated and iNnclucké penetratin oF the S eXual oY At oF amalethe instruc tion vio lated pebitonet

Whether the indictment was defective in count 1 and 2 under state law, whether the indictment failed to specify the date and place of the alleged criminal act, whether the indictment showed prejudice toward the petitioner as a habitual offender, whether the evidence was insufficient to support the verdict, whether the trial judge admitted false testimony that violated due process, whether the jury instruction was flawed, whether a directed verdict should have been granted, whether a new trial should have been granted, whether the conviction and sentence as a habitual offender violate the Constitution