Whether the presumption of innocence and burden of proof requirements are unconstitutionally repealed in enhancement cases, requiring the defendant to prove innocence by a preponderance of evidence

QUESTION(S) PRESENTED 1.) person accused of an offense is presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable . doubt, and the burden of proof is upon the prosecution. IS NOW REPEALED Accordingly to any enhancement case one is presumed guilty until proven innocentby a poeponderance of evidence, only then does a burden~shift occur purusant to State v. Wright, 2015-Ohio-2601; State v. Brooke, 113 Ohio St.3d 199; AND 0.R.C2945.75(B)(3); Is this fair and just to our justice system? . 2,.)_ If we can agree in US v. Agurs, NN4 "if omitted evidence such as N(APPX 1) and (APPX 3) to the grand jury, this would create a reasonable doubt to probable cause that otherwise would not exist, showing constitutional error has been commited. Shouldn't the constitution protect defendant and reverse defendant's conviction? 3.) lf "constitutionally infirm" convictions are presented a "firm" to the grand jury, presented firm to defense and presented firm to the COurt. Can it be said that defendant gave a knowing, intelligent, and voluntary plea? OR Is the plea void? 4.) Is it proper for a Court of Appeals to rule contrary to an already decided EXCEPTION Steverson v. Summers, 258 F.3d 520, HN6 "11. the Court recognized an exception, allowing petitioners under 2254 and 2255 "that challenge an enhanced sentence on the basis that the prior conviction used to enhance the sentence was obtained where there was a failure to appoint counsel in violation of the Sixth Amendment, as set forth in Gideon v, Wainwright See also Daniels, 121 S.Ct. at 1583, In addition, pluralities from both cases suggest another exception. In Baniels, the plurality stated that "there may be rare cases in , which no channel of review was actually available to a defendant with respect to a pr@or conviction, due to no fault of his own. Daniels 121 S.Ct. at 1584, A pluralty in Coss elaborated. : «.-a state court may, without jurisdict, refuse to rule on a constitutional claim that has been properly presented to it. ++.actual innocence of the crime for which he was convicted, and he could not have uncovered in a timely manner. See