Whether a criminal defendant can be convicted and sentenced to life for a separate, new and distinct crime without a jury trial

QUESTIONS PRESENTED 1. WHETHER A CRIMINAL DEFENDANT CAN BE CONVICTED AND SENTENCED TO LIFE FOR A SEPARATE, NEW AND DISTINCT CRIME. WITH WHICH HE HAD NOT BEEN ON TRIAL FOR AND WAS NOT A LESSER INCLUDED CRIME? CAN THE PETITIONER BE TRIED FOR THE CRIME OF SODOMY UNDER MISSOURI STATUTE §566.060 SECTION 3, BUT CONVICTED OF FORCIBLE SODOMY UNDER §566.060 SECTION 1 RSMO A SEPARATE, NEW AND DISTINCT CRIME WITHOUT A JURY TRIAL FOR THE NEW CRIME? IS THIS EXTRAORDINARY ERROR A STRUCTURAL DEFECT OR STRUCTURAL ERROR THAT CONSTITUTIONALLY REQUIRES AN AUTOMATIC REVERSAL? IS PETITIONER ENTITLED TO A JURY TRIAL FOR THE CRIME WITH | : WHICH HE HAS NOW BEEN CONVICTED AND SENTENCED TO LIFE FOR THE PAST | MORE THEN 27 YEARS NOW WITHOUT A JURY TRIAL? | 2. WHETHER PETITIONER CAN BE CONVICTED AND SENTENCED TO LIFE , IMPRISONMENT WITHOUT NOTICE OR INFORMED OF THE NATURE AND CAUSE OF THE ACCUSATION SO AS TO ALLOW PETITIONER THE OPPORTUNITY TO ADEQUATELY PREPARE A DEFENSE AND TO NOT BE SUBJECT TO TWICE BEING PLACED IN JEOPARDY FOR THE SAME OFFENSE IN THE FUTURE? CAN PETITIONER BE TRIED AND CHARGED WITH ONE CRIME BUT CONVICTED OF ANOTHER WITHOUT A SEPARATE JURY TRIAL FOR THE NEW CRIME? AND IS CONVICTING AND SENTENCING PETITIONER TO LIFE IN PRISON WITHOUT TRIAL OR CHARGE FUNDAMENTALLY UNFAIR? AND DOES IT CONSTITUTE A MANIFEST INJUSTICE AND A FUNDAMENTAL MISCARRIAGE OF JUSTICE? 3. WHETHER PETITIONER WAS DENIED HIS FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT RIGHTS TO SAFEGUARDS GUARANTEED BY DUE PROCESS OF LAW AND EQUAL PROTECTION OF THE LAW, SAFEGUARDS ESSENTIAL TO LIBERTY IN A GOVERNMENT DEDICATED TO JUSTICE UNDER LAW? INCLUDING HIS RIGHT TO EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL, TRIAL, APPELLATE AND POST~CONVICTION RELIEF MOTIONS? I we, 4. WHETHER AN APPEALS COURT CAN INVENT, EXPAND AND RETROACTIVELY APPLY A JUDICIAL CONSTUCTION OF A CRIMINAL STATUTE IN AN UNEXPECTED . AND INDEFENSIBLE MANNER BY REFERENCE TO LAW WHICH HAD BEEN EXPRESSED PRIOR TO THE CONDUCT IN ISSUE AND WAS THEN RETROACTIVELY APPLIED TO PETITIONER'S ALLEGED CONDUCT? DID THIS VIOLATE PETITIONER'S DUE PROCESS RIGHTS UNDER THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT TO THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION AND DOES IT CONSTITUTE A MANIFEST INJUSTICE OR A FUNDAMENTAL MISCARRIAGE OF JUSTICE AND MAKING HIS CONVICTION AND LIFE SENTENCE ILLEGAL? 5. DID IT VIOLATE PETITIONER'S RIGHT TO DUE PROCESS AND EQUAL PROTECTION OF THE LAW WHEN THE MISSOURI COURT OF APPEALS ENGAGED IN UNLAWFUL AND JUDICIAL MISCONDUCT WHEN THERE WAS A LACK OF FORCIBLE COMPULSION EVIDENCE TO INVENT AND MAKE UP A COMPLETELY FICTIONAL STORY LINE IN THEIR OPINION NOT SUPPORTED BY THE RECORD, TRANSCRIPTS OR ANY EVIDENCE AT TRIAL? AND CAN AN APPEALS COURT IGNORE A MANIFEST INJUSTICE BECAUSE OF THE TYPE OF OFFENSE IT WAS? (SEX OFFENSE INVOLVING A MINOR). DID THIS VIOLATE PETITIONER'S FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT RIGHTS TO THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION? Ia