Whether the Iowa state court decision in State v. Heemstra, that it is an interpretation of the statute, is contrary to the decision in State v. Goosman, that Heemstra involves a change in law and not a mere clarification, and is also contrary to clearly established United States Supreme Court decisions in United States v. Bousley and Rivers v. Roadway Express, Inc. regarding its statutory interpretation's degree of retroactivity

QUESTIONS PRESENTED 1.)THE TOWA STATE COURT DECISION IN STATE V. HEEMSTRA, THAT IT IS AN INTERPRETATION OF THE STATUTE IS CONTRARY TO THE DECISION IN STATE V. GOOSMAN, THAT HEEMSTRA INVOLVES A CHANGE IN UAW AND NOT A MERE CLARIFICATION. THE DECISION IN STATE V. HEEMSTRA IS At'so CONTRARY TO CLEARLY ESTABLISHED UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT DECISION(S) IN UNITED STATES V. BOUSLEY AND RIVERS V.. ROADWAY EXPRESS, INC. REG~ ARDING IT'S STATUTORY INTERPRETATION"S DEGREE OF RETROACTIVITY AS TT SPRUNG FROM A CONSTITUTIONAULY DEFECTIVE FELONY .MUDER JURY IN-~ STRUCTION THAT IN ESSENCE VIOLATED. THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT GUARANTEE TO DUE PROCESS AND EQUAL’ PROTECTION OF THE LAW. HENCE, MR= : -JAMES WAS DENIED THESE CONSTITUTIONAL’ GUARANTEES, THUS THIS DECI= SION RESULTED IN A FUNDAMENTAL MISCARRIAGE OF JUSTICE. 2.)MR. JAMES' FEDERAL CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO DUE PROCESS WAS VIOLATED BECAUSE THE INSTRUCTIONS GIVEN AT HIS TRIAU, AND THE GENERAL VERDICT FORM, PERMITTED THE JURY TO CONVICT HIM OF FIRST-DEGREE MURDER AND/OR FELONY MURDER WITHOUT A FINDING AND/OR A SEPERATE FINDING OF THE ESSENTIAL ELEMENTS ESTABLISHING FIRST-DEGREE MURDER(WILLFULLY, DELIBERATELY ,PREMEDITATEDLY,AND WETH SPECIFIC INTENT) . NOR A FINDING OF THE PREDICATE OFFENGE ESTABLISHING FEUONY MURDER (WIUUFUL INJURY OR TERRORISM). THUS, POSSIBLY RESTING HIS CONVICTTON ON A PREDICATE FELONY WHICH IS NOT A FORCIBLE FELONY(TERRORISM). THEREFORE, IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO DETERMINE WHAT THE JURY UNANIMOUSLY , AGREED MR. JAMES IS GUILTY OF, OR IF HIS CONVICTION RESTS UPON A THEORY CONTAINING LEGAL ERROR, RESULTING IN A FUNDAMENTAL’ MISCARRTAGE OF JUSTICE. 3.)THE UNITED STATES DISTR’ CT COURT'S "DISCUSSION OF APPLICABLE UAW" RULING ON MR. JAMES' PETITION STANDS IN CONTRADICTION TO WHAT THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT ALLOWED IN DEJONG V. NEBRASKA UNDER . 28 U.S.C $ 2254(d)(1). AND THE "EACTUAL’ PREDICATE" ASPECT OF THAT RULING DECLARING THE IOWA COURT DECISION. IN STATE V. HEEMSTRA TO BE "A CHANGE IN THE INTERPRETATION OF LAW" IS NOT ONUY A RENDERING CONTRARY TO THAT IN STATE V. GOOSMAN, IT ALSO SETS FORTH AN INNOVATIVE AND UNPRECEDENTED ADJUDICATION BY A HIGHER COURT POTENTIALLY SETTLING THE DISAGREEMENT AND SUPPORTING MR. JAMES? ARGUEMENT THAT HEEMSTRA IS MERELY STATUTORY INTERPRETATION AND IS THUS AUTOMATICALLY "FULLY" RETROACTIVE UNDER RIVERS AND BOUSLEY. THE CONTRADICTI-~= ONS BETWEEN THE COURTS AND CASES HAVE RESUUTED IN A DENTAL OF MR.JAMES' FEDERAL CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS TO DUE PROCESS AND EQUAL PROTECTION UNDER THE LAW. 4.)MR. JAMES’ PETITION IS ENTITLED TO EQUITABLIE TOLUING UNDER BOTH COLEMAN V. THOMPSON AND HOLLAND V. FLORIDA. HE I$ Atiso ENTITLED : TO EQUITABLE TOL'LING UNDER COULTER V. KEL'VEY AND EGERTON V. COCKRELL