Whether the trial court's misdirection of the jury as to the applicable sentencing range constituted egregious harm

QUESTIONS PRESENTED QUESTION NUMBER ONE The trial court judge in this case states unequivocally that she misdirected the jury as to the law in this case that changed Petitioner’s sentencing range from that of 2 to 20 years to 5 to 99 years, or life. Petitioner was sentenced to 65 years in prison when in fact he was only legally eligible to be sentenced under a second-degree felony of 2 to 20 years. Does this not constitute egregious harm? QUESTION NUMBER TWO When a trial counsel admits that he was ineffective by failing to object to a jury charge and admits the same during a habeas corpus evidentiary hearing. How can the Court of Criminal Appeals ignore this fact? QUESTION NUMBER THREE Does the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution allow a conviction to stand without a jury finding of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt to each and every essential element of the charged offense?