Did the refusal to order re-sentencing on the remaining conviction, limited to evidence supporting that conviction, violate Conley's right to due process of law in view of Hicks v. Oklahoma, 447 U.S. 343 (1980)?

QUESTION PRESENTED FOR REVIEW PETITIONER WAS CONVICTED OF THREE DRUG OFFENSES AND SENTENCED BY THE JURY TO A TOTAL TERM OF 90 YEARS. THE ARKANSAS SUPREME COURT FOUND INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE SUPPORTING TWO CONVICTIONS, WHICH THE COURT REVERSED, LEAVING INTACT HIS CONVICTION ON THE REMAINING COUNT, ON WHICH HE HAD BEEN SENTENCED TO 60 YEARS IN PRISON. ALTHOUGH THE JURY IMPOSED THE ORIGINAL SENTENCES IN A JOINT PROCEEDING IN WHICH = IT CONSIDERED THE EVIDENCE ON ALL THREE COUNTS IN SETTING CONLEY’S PUNISHMENT, THE ARKANSAS SUPREME COURT REFUSED TO ORDER RE-SENTENCING LIMITED TO EVIDENCE ON THE REMAINING CONVICTION. DID THE REFUSAL TO ORDER RE-SENTENCING ON THE REMAINING CONVICTION, LIMITED TO EVIDENCE SUPPORTING THAT CONVICTION, VIOLATE CONLEY’S RIGHT TO DUE PROCESS OF LAW IN VIEW OF HICKS v. OKLAHOMA, 447 U.S. 343 (1980)? i