Was William Williams denied his right to due process, to present a defense, and to a properly instructed jury?

QUESTION(S) PRESENTED I. Was William Williams denied his right to due process, to present a defense, and to a properly instructed jury where the trial court refused to provide a mitigation instruction, thereby removing the primary factual issue in dispute at trial from the province of the jury? Mr. Williams answers: “Yes.” The prosecution answered: “No.” The Court of Appeals answered: “No.” The trial court answered: “No.” II. Did the prosecutor’s argument that assault with intent to murder should be decided based on the actus reus and not the mens rea deny Mr. Williams a fair trial? Alternatively, did defense counsel render ineffective assistance of counsel by failing to fully articulate the grounds for his objection to the prosecutor’s improper argument, prejudicing Mr. Williams and necessitating a new trial? Mr. Williams answers: “Yes.” . The prosecution answered: “No.” The Court of Appeals answered: “No.” The trial court answered: “No.” III. Was Mr. Williams sentenced on the basis of inaccurate information and in violation of his right to due process where several offense variables were incorrectly scored, thus inflating the minimum guideline range? Is resentencing therefore required? Mr. Williams answers: “Yes.” The prosecution answered: “No.” The Court of Appeals answered: “No.” The trial court answered: “No.” IV. Is Mr. Williams entitled to be resentenced where the trial court imposed a sentence for assault with intent to murder that was more the twice as long as the top of his recommended guideline range, and its stated basis for the sentence imposed largely recited the elements of the offenses Mr. Williams had been convicted of and the facts that caused his guideline range to be so high in the first place? Mr. Williams answers: “Yes.” The prosecution answered: “No.” The Court of Appeals answered: “No.” The trial court answered: “No.”