1. Whether, consistent with Hewitt v. United States, 145 S. Ct. 2165 (2025), a vacated conviction is void ab initio and wholly nullified, such that courts may not continue to give prospective legal effect thereto under the Due Process, Privileges and Immunities, Suspension and Supremacy Clauses of the United States Constitution.

2. Whether a state court lacks jurisdiction over the subject matter of a statute after the legislature's repeal of said statute, repealed prior to alleged offense, contrary to the Separation of Powers Doctrine, Due Process and Supremacy Clauses of the United States Constitution.

3. Whether dismissal of a predicate offense (aggravated robbery), which is an essential element of the alleged greater offense, deprives a trial court of jurisdiction to impose a conviction and sentence dependent on that offense, and whether reliance on the dismissed offense violates the Double Jeopardy Clause, Due Process and Cruel and Unusual Punishment Prohibitions of the Fifth, Sixth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution.

4. Whether a trial court lacks jurisdiction to "increase the prescribed range of penalties" based on "facts" not found by a jury, including a dismissed offense non-statutory aggravating circumstances in violation of the Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution.

Whether a vacated conviction is void ab initio and wholly nullified such that courts may not continue to give prospective legal effect thereto, and whether a trial court lacks jurisdiction to impose a conviction and sentence based on a dismissed predicate offense in violation of the Due Process, Double Jeopardy, and Cruel and Unusual Punishment Clauses