whether-petitioner-was-denied-due-process-of-law

QUESTION(S) PRESENTED I : WHETHER PETITIONER WAS DENIED DUE PROCESS OF LAW, WHEN THE STATE COURT COURT SENTENCED HIM TO SPEND 30 YEARS TO LIFE IN STATE PRISON, UNDER A "THREE-STRIKES" LAW THEORY THAT WAS SUBSEQUENTLY CLARIFIED FIVE YEARS AFTER HIS SENTENCE BY PEOPLE V. VARGAS(2014)59 Cal.4th 635, WHICH WOULD BENEFICIALLY MANDATE_A_NON-LIFE SENTENCE OF . C SLARIFICATION 1S: APPLIED RETROACTIVELY UNDER STATE. LAW (See ICKS V. 343, 346; 14th AMENDMENT TO THE U.S. CONSTITUTION) ? II ae WHETHER PETITIONER WAS DENIED EQUAL PROTECTION OF THE LAW WHEN THE POST-CONVICTION STATE COURTS ARBITRARILY DENIED HIS STATE HABEAS CLAIMS, CLASSIFYING PETITIONER AS A "THIRD-STRIKER" UNDER,~AN ADMITTEDLY ILLEGAL ''THREE-STRIKES" THEORY THAT_WAS __ SUBSEQUENTLY CLARIFIED FIVE YEARS AFTER HIS ORIGINAL PRA ALSO IGNORING ; THAT THE RES JUDICATA DOCTRINE DID NOT BAR HABEAS RELIEF BECAUSE THE LIBERTY-INTEREST CREATED BY THE VARGAS DECISION CHANGED THE LAW, COMPELLED RESENTENCING (See HICKS V. OKLAHOMA(1980)447 U.S. 343, 346; 14th AMENDMENT To “THE U.S. CONSTITUTION) ? aS ; IIL WHETHER UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THIS CASE, SHOULD THIS SUPREME COURT EXERCISE ITS "G.V.R." DISCRETION, REMANDING THIS CASE BACK TO THE STATE COURT SO THAT THEY PROPERLY APPLIED THE CLARIFIED "THREE-STRIKES" LAW THAT VARGAS CREATED, AS TO AVERT A MISCARRIAGE OF JUSTICE WHERE PETITIONER SITS IN STATE PRISON TO AN ILLEGAL 30 YEARS TO LIFE SENTENCE (See LORDS LANDING VILLAGE V. CONTINENTAL INS. CO.(1997) 520 U.S. 893, 896) 7 | . 7 la ;