Whether the Third District Court of Appeal violated the petitioner's constitutional right to due process of appellate review by not addressing his petition and the trial court's denial of his ex post facto violation claim

No question identified. : TE the. poloner ile aetna oc afford Second Weilnn Fw UATE Was Cp peilon with Te Toad. SEE ae Appeal pag Ce ia caaes eal of ty. pl face dockine claim, can The Thiel Vishict GourkGtAppad cle) neon) toastidutional dght to due process ob appellate. eli _ [by nok acdelvessing, ony petition, aocthe-Actal Courts ckenial of in epson lain ean deg. my pe Hin 05. Melon Yo eeing : Bish oe Bali ALL parties agpenc inthe Caption of -the Case on the Coyete _ Tabe0 Contes = cr Hurisdicton falemekoeInelst |Rezion Fon Ginling Won (edfiaeofseviig == CUCCC‘CsCS = sine Append append Aven aE The cP ach Doe Toe Sal opaudy 8% Covel Hanscirpls dering 10 open cout Agpliccttione —ppelic i ianes Second Pelton Fowl oF Hahos Copa jpovcliDe Toul Usted Coick OP Roped coucl ocke brealiag and. ening pel ties Second Rebibion Tot Worit oF Habens Corpus ~ opendia B: Petiones Won Fat Rohewrag and Third Skee Coach pea cut ol an igi faa Rekarige | infin | \The_polifoner reapecthuhy pays that a Woob oe lectomd 5a oe hd clement: belo the _opiaton of The Tied Distack Court of Appeal Fou tha Rare oF Fo AiR DE oer senkngand Leyieg petitioners Second Petition foe Writ OF Habeas Corpk OQ : [the date on which the highest str cuuct olecidled om case. wns fon Api 2, 208. lowing motion Fue Rehearing, . _ _ Constrtutioal Howision , olDue flues oF laut Volafen SSS _2|Pqual Protection Under The. Law Violatton — a _ Statement OF TheCase © [dp Sune 20, 2000_1n Phe rsh inshnce eel eel gyetin_—___ hans presented the. peltiones tral Conse on APT DF Tha Ex Fado Doone. mnt. Smal Habiteal Predict Fi pelt aclistig Pre tial tour gucbe oF an paSsole cps Foci ulolublon. (See Aad) 2 Fg Sine a_i. pen. Chat Pra cowl pace canted The —_politiones ust fuclo vidletion Gleton (soe Abed B) , *lThe_polrtiones Lice: apnea]. Court. appointed a Hong neuer ois he preserUal @e pu fick voalbn Clana on clive! apes alin Febaanay Ne nine Soa, nHonce Hel De Fell que Vion us. presen Phe pebtoner Gedo. legilinald ou] ihe |len?. Sond Pelion Fax EF WahasCarpas pottfia with he Tl iste Colo peal cosine and appoalig BR — Cal cowed alge 2x pot fc sioladon. coment opihagfe | oe _.bhoniedl the petictiones Second Retitfin Fat. weit oF Habews Corps 0s 0 Mobion Foe Rehearing withoil addressing the Fadeal quéston bE the ex post Fach vinkiHian That Lous Committed ancins) the pee iHioner by the-tetal court qudats (Sve pou DT _* 100 March 19,2018 the petitioner fled @. Ennely nistion Fat Rehentiaa, wherts on_Apal a, 2018 The Thiel District Court of Appeal dened fe _ | Reason For. Goanting fekifion __ Phe. gefttionec slats thatthe cevton this honorable. cout shoul cant this peltton %_bemuse hes entitled! tp due proces of law» cad daval_patection.of Ate lw =p appellaie. review Othe jal courls dental_of his_appealable clainn_of.an_ox post fach = ithe pebttiona stake Had he is entitled to a sentence jefe Uchon of 4.6theen years with crehtdime seed focallyoi| lard pian tions sented or appellate cevieud of the trlal __ | Courts dental_of his_ex post facto violation claim. z