I. It was a Jurisdictional Defect of the proceedings, by not allowing the jury to find Petitioner guilty, with proof beyond a reasonable doubt, of a sentence enhancement increasing his punishment. In violation of Petitioner's Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendment Rights of U.S. Constitution. Ayprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 490, (2000), see also, Alleyne v. United States, 570 U.S. 99 (2013).

II. Petitioner was denied his Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendment Rights to the United States Constitution and Due Process, because the jury verdict form did not include the sentence enhancement. Furthermore, because prior convictions/recidivism are considered 'elements' that must be submitted to a jury, proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Apprendi v. New Jersey. 530 U.S. 466, 490, (2000), Commonwealth v. Paean, 445 Mass. 161 (2005), et. al.

III. Statute MCL 769.12; 769.13; and MSA 28.1085, as amended by 1994 P.A. 110, are unconstitutional, and fraudulent, because they deny several constitutional guaranties. Including the right to a trial by jury, and the right to be proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of every element of the crime charged, including Judge found facts. Thus Violating Petitioner's Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendment Rights of the United States Constitution.

IV. The trial court abused its discretion when admitting MCR 404(b) identity evidence. This improperly admitted, prejudicial identity evidence, was presented to the jury. But a verdict was not rendered as to identity for 'recidivism/prior convictions'.

Whether a sentence enhancement based on prior convictions violates a defendant's Sixth and Fourteenth Amendment rights by not being submitted to a jury for determination beyond a reasonable doubt