Whether the defendant's due process rights were violated when the Louisiana Supreme Court upheld his conviction and sentence without a hearing or oral argument

No question identified. : I § HOY po Apaqr7 jo frosatur ja ansst up spy seugyIa, saa” Ss) i UDLLIIA ~4oy a uIDIGO Of Runppuvsg Jyy Wary hj aayjno ayod.nsn ayoqs ay "hd — svmgoy IMAL VS) SMGAV) SvIqny Re nn ‘a sy ap oy Ayaayny Jasiasadng oH a5T] FIN sie uayy UElLerFap Sur uF padig p10) auaidng Orso] ay) SOUP” ; £™107 IO +3 OW DSU JINN Iq Pp) eon] JIUIPYAS PUD UEHTIAUOD ;uaMOpA YINS aay “TI Md eal S puy udiaiaug7 Vpuamopany AIPA Of UUIIIPSIANI” say oil ; pals pay wy 447nv7 pIysy 0 ofotte 49 (07 4g aNSST Jeo ay HY) UD foluagye pay) sug” yrassz pine amardng sunismnoy ayy 27yjayA\ ZI 40} $9 f4noy OU! aU u49 pa -junuay hyap Kae [OU SDY ay Kay fPa04#9 203 yh aq juopuajap DW) 1 2 é -asnay joGe ayy apa ipniyo gy aamad 49 uoy?) -p spank 4noyyim {1110.7 vhg pyeydh ag grualuas PUD UMJIAUTI DU) “| os 4 7] PHDISMOT Uy UoLpoaLIgu! fo J/LZ 2 4 PpUn vounp sa uo ayn yi sud) anys vd0.4 Pyoneby sdf i viqyed vo bu). polAv ap vonatiddo Jara Ug IMUTIASOT D YOL! oct sndg7 > 7aqy andy apna Lana) folysip apyls vw) 9 iPvy| By} Jo 7] ay Mop} o. pyvhyjga spina yore Hy °L ‘ j 40549 a MINA {uagua di put sy! pnpuag you pip f! “aym aN? SS II OAT ONT a OpOlA prey ameaidny vuUISMN po A) : . j Moy yAUOD 9 UIO{GO Y ISNO/T ssazod INP YA LIMIT JIHMYSIP ADS PIS d paiin370 yuapod 40 40449 fun 4! a UIW1a} ap of pybrs ya poo dde SjUnpusyap ut psara Hy 4° qnainad suspuacl ~>PUs UMI jf aie WI Add Jane] aW NE BusSTy AY PICP ly en fig pean ay 5¢ puaul{7| pup hanp pussg ugar vanpou gyn cas LEA hy adv “bho 42 veynvasosd spivs 443 pnd LYSIP HYS 7H PTL é fy bid 40 paddy fjua pus aug SIy gUInp jasungz pauap hamprnysua sor ay Baym fair Y. pa) {jue jereyr JT F : ¢ [RHE OuInp jasung7 G31LN4S3ud (S)NOILSINO