Did the Auton Couty Supreme Court violate Petitioner's right to the due process of the law and right to the equal protection of the law by failing to impose post-release supervision?

QUESTION(S) PRESENTED I. Did the Auton Couty Supreme Court viclote Rhtioners right to the dve. process a the lai and right To the. equal protection oF Ye low by Sahing to impose post valeoge Sqparvision? 2. Dogs a Bscrepancy Yaar exasts behwoan Reltioners sentence Glia]asy resentence CYiYO5) transcripts ond RetiNorers certificate & convichon entitle Rk} grey to 0 resentencing) 3,0id tha Sulivon Coiky Spree Cove vidofe. Pebbioners right to We due process of She low and right 40 the eal protechion of the law by Tong Fo impose post relense Supervision at Petitioner's vesententing heaving J SfiYos ® 4, Did. the Sullivan County Supreme Corr violoke Rbtiones igh ty the Preedom of eaprassion ond right tu the due, process of He low by considering Teltiorevs totleas 05: relevart saintencing foptors while Imposing Sentence. Spon Rone” . 5,Did the Sshivewn Canty Supreme Cort viclote, Reitioners right tothe die process of the Yow by imposing sentence upon Rektloney occoidire, ty misstatements of facts ond moterally vahve assurphions 6.Did the Sullivan Corby irene Court violote, Paiionerk Fight fy be See fom ewe) ard unysuol punishment by sertenciy aitiorey to a sentence gpassly disproportionate tp the ofnses commited ® . 7ZDid the Soilivorn Coushy Supreme Cot violate Reitiones night Yo be fee form cwel ad Unwsvol_ punishment by sentencing Pebitioney to Seivtony morienum terms oF imprisonment on all counts Ritoner js convicted’? 1 QUESTION(S) PRESENTED 8.Did the Sullivan Courkyy Sreme Court viclote Reiigners right Fo be Wee from crvel and unugued punishment by certencing, Riitoner to consecutive sentences’? 9.Did the Salven Coury Supreme Gout vilate Rttigners rio} to the equal protection of the low by sentencing Pektioner occarding fo invelevorn fockars ond diszimilarly from Ane treokment Bibione: codclondonts received ® & . lo,Did Rarhaner tensive indfedive ossishorce of carrsel in violation of Bhhcnadt Gusttotional hop daring Rtoners sortencing bering of gos? il. Did Pettionar renee indfiehie ostistonce o} course) in vidletion of Rihana Consktvtionol ght during, Raitianerk resentencing heaving at Silos’ I2.Did He Silivorr Courhy Sopreme, Cot render 0. decisign oF deniod on duly VW, WN’ and Sepleriber 5, 2018 volotiog, Faitioners rept Yo Are die provess of the low and rift to ne geal prdection of the low by hosing sch o deniol on incgrrect Sects and low ® : IB.Did the, New York, Sista, Supreme Coort, Pppsllote Division The Tudicial Deparbmerk vide Rhtionerds Fight tothe. due preceess oF the \ow and fight to \ne equal protedhion of ne. law loy faling to roview Riitionens edly otddonit betove. ening Rekttionay leave +o oppeol? ii |