Whether a sentence is manifestly erroneous because the Doctrine of Amelioration allows for that sentence to be controlled by a newly amended version of a criminal statute, enacted before the sentence was imposed, rather than the older statutory provisions

QUESTION(S) PRESENTED The “touchstone of Due Process” is “fundamental fairness.”! It is well-established, . therefore, that due process must wear many different robes. The grandest of which is the unctuously objective mantle that clothes a criminal defendant protecting them from the arbitrary exercise of government power. Thusly, this Court is , beseeched to consider the controversy presented for review in guise of these two questions: > Whether a sentence is manifestly erroneous because the Doctrine of Amelioration allows for that sentence to be controlled by a newly amended version of a criminal statute, enacted before the sentence was imposed, rather than the . older statutory provisions; and . > Whether such sentence, being manifestly erroneous — as it would violate the new statutory authority that governs it — may be challenged at any time, because it | cannot be waived and, hence, is not subject to the limiting Doctrine of Res Judicata? PARTIES . The petitioner is Shawn Twitty, a prisoner at the Wabash Valley Correctional Facility, of the Indiana Department of Correction, in Carlisle, Indiana. The . respondent is the State of Indiana. . . _ 1 Santobello v. New York, 404 U.S. 257, 262, 92S. Ct. 495 (1971) . ii