Whether the voir dire examination oath provision of Rules 3.191 and 3.300(a) of the Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure is a jurisdictional fact

QUESTION(S) PRESENTED I. Whether the voir dire examination oath provision of Rules 3.191 and 3.300(a) of the Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure is a jurisdictional fact, as such is defined by the U.S. Supreme Court in Noble v. Union River Logging and Railroad Co., 13 S.Ct. 271, 147 U.S. 165 (1893), the existence of which is necessary to the validity of a Florida criminal jury trial proceeding, and without which the action of the court fails for want of jurisdiction over the person or subject-matter, constituting a denial of a defendant’s due process right guaranteed by the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. I. Whether Petitioner’s habeas challenge to the jurisdictional validity of the trial court’s act of issuing its order appointing postconviction counsel as legal representative in Petitioner’s case, an act Petitioner challenges as a proceeding jurisdictionally wanting, serve as sufficient basis for pro se filing of his habeas petition; and, if so, whether the Florida Supreme Court’s dismissal of Petitioner’s habeas petition violate Petitioner’s 14" Amendment right to due process.