Whether the judge's extra language in the judgment of conviction, in context with his conduct at sentencing, is a violation of the Separation of Powers doctrine under the United States Constitution

QUESTION(S) PRESENTED : I) Whether the Jdyes extta langage in the Judgement OP Conviction, in Contect with his teat at gertencny,is a vidledion of the Separation OF Powers doctivae , a the Unrted Stites Constihtion. 2) of the July whet OA Susect cvidkace in Violation of the St Arnendbnre st ond x cvendwent of tye artek States Congttution et the State Coprt Sentencing hearing. 3) WWhethar Detitoners Cans! ures ePdue vager the €7 amnenduett of the Untedl Shes consiotton ( U.S. C) cand the Ghicleled }est.in sorteache, 'y nat -obsectony tox yudge cleter~ ming Chore danyerousness doctolin, ec Mendltry Sertence ard the use of suspect evidence. oO 4) bheler petits counsel was effective under the 6the HH ameadmeal of the U.S.C. © the Strichlind test, iw not recommending an apes fy the language anh intent: at xnpfecng Ey He Sobgemat of Convictlen, € ty not ling an fed acer Such & MaA\Oo Miscarriage of ustice. b) Whether gelibrones Counsel wes effediiv order the Gt amentucrt of He USL. é tHe Strckloud. ot plea ‘pet A8chagnuent, d if petittoners long wes coerce, alse I Whe Shake Dastitet fHietie/ wes Coestne,nalcing the plea deal embed ante vavdlunrtily ard) onkinow vagy and 9 the Jobe viola He Plea Nek by adda, \O vps. 40 @ mandicovy Senfence.