Cra the petitioner's Chan, that LAE conuretang aon JO have jucitdrctira ty prosedute him on count ¢
Of his indichaven? becauce the state dalaot charge him with a Crimé Cagnizable urdér state law, be excepted
from procedural haers, Even On a Successive BASY Habers Corpuc, And wal hiv clam off Acfonl innscense
reviewable on Hahens ceview ied was cased by thé juvitdecd tonal lyin?

Was the pertioner's Andamenfa | Constitutional o/ght fo Snic deal Violated on Comts Land TL
tohendhe Htafe Prcused iff enfire team! around couctY, He void count, in accordance with the doctrine
'Of retro achive Misjander? Cegguartag reversal auc! remend of those 3 counts torn flew trial,

Has pevtioners sentence expired, violattag his © 7 cdr ambrcl. right 40 Lv€ process ot law pvel
his 8th amend. right agamst cevel aed vavial punish ment dor hig coadave incarterntion ?

Whether the petitioner's fundamental constitutional right to due process was violated when the state prosecuted him on counts of his indictment because the state did not charge him with a crime cognizable under state law, thereby excepting him from procedural bars, even on a successive post-conviction habeas corpus, and making his claim of actual innocence reviewable on habeas review