1. Was it proper for the State to intentionally mislead the court when it required that petitioner show the presumption of equality when the real issue that was presented was that the judge aggravated petitioner's sentence without a jury trial in order to determine the aggravating circumstances it would use to enhance petitioner's sentence?

Petitioner has shown that he should have received a trial prior to sentencing according to statute pursuant to 31-18-15.) CA) NMSA 1978, in order to allow a jury to find the aggravating circumstances necessary to enhance petitioner's sentence.

2. Does petitioner retain the right to a jury determination on the aggravating circumstances surrounding the offense or concerning the offender even though petitioner did not stipulate to the relevant facts in his plea agreement, but rather he stipulated to the elements of the crime to which he pled, not to the aggravating factor(s) or circumstance(s)?

The court in this case chose to accept petitioner's plea agreement as a valid waiver of the right to a jury determination of the aggravating circumstance in order to enhance petitioner's sentence even though the record did not show that petitioner knew that he had the right to waive that jury trial to determine the aggravating circumstance and second that by pleading guilty he was ultimately waiving that particular right.

3. Should the lower courts have dismissed petitioner's case when they clearly stated in their response that: "There is no dispute that the plea agreement lacked a specific waiver of trial by jury regarding aggravating factors; and similarly, there is no dispute that the district court did not comply with the procedural requirements of the version of 31-18-18... in place at the time of sentencing"?

Was it proper for the state to intentionally mislead the court