Did the court's refusal to accept the timely 3.850 motion filing because it did not identify the circuit court in the certification of service violate the petitioner's 14th Amendment right to due process of law?

QUESTIONS PRESENTED L DID THE COURTS REFUSAL TO ACCEPT THE TIMELY 3.850 MOTION FILING BECAUSE IT DID NOT IDENTIFY THE CIRCUIT COURT IN THE CERTIFICATION OF SERVICE VIOLATE THE PETETIONER’S 14™ AMENDMENT RIGHT TO DUE PROCESS OF LAW? ; Il. DID THE CIRCUIT VIOLATE WELSH’S AMENDMENT RIGHT TO PETITION FOR A REDRESS OF HIS GRIEVANCES WHEN IT USED THE LAW OF THE CASE DOCTRINE TO DETERMINE THE CLAIMS WERE FRIVILOUS AND THREATEN PUNITIVE SANCTIONS EVEN THOUGH THE MERITS WERE NEVER REACHED? mH. DOES FLORIDA’S CAPITAL SEXUAL BATTERY STATUTE FOR ORAL/VAGINAL UNION VIOLATE THE 14™ AMENDMENT UPON PRESENTMENT OF INFORMATION RATHER THAN BY INDICTMENT? IV. DOES THE CAPITAL SEXUAL BATTERY STATUE’S MANDATORY LIFE WITHOUT PAROLE SENTENCE FOR FIRST TIME OFFENDERS CONVICTED SOLELY ON THE UNCORROBORATED TESTIMONY OF THE VICI M. WITNESS VIOLATE THE 8™ AMENDMENT? DOES THE EVIDENTIARY PROVISION OF FLORIDA’S CAPITAL SEXUAL BATTERY STATUTE RENDER THE LAW FACIALLY UNCONSTITUTIONAL UNDER THE VOID FOR VAGUENESS DOCTRINE?