Whether the indictment was defective in count 1 and 2 under state law, whether the indictment failed to specify the date and place of the alleged criminal act, whether the indictment showed prejudice toward the petitioner as a habitual offender, whether the evidence was insufficient to support the verdict, whether the trial judge admitted false testimony that violated due process, whether the jury instruction was flawed, whether a directed verdict should have been granted, whether a new trial should have been granted, whether the conviction and sentence as a habitual offender violate the Constitution

No question identified. : k OVEstion® presented Ww betwee the indictment was defected in count \ and twoundee See om pale coun) cauck practice The in dickmeng fail +o e Cu 6 Spee ic dake and lace oF ae ed ; ; ed p € i) CRIM iValact dhat aes Wie aileg holave fake nN place two geak ago w hich mst H a BS) dhe : ‘ ce yacrt Ne) petitioner, ccUSEe © COUR Show Mg pre jadrce taword tne bo, whethee the indschment showing prcavace foward pebtoner £o%, ha b itual ofrendee wha not Stx mI iW the chicken b WUTESMA Geushethu amation Hled to dismiss Lheindicdment @3 Violadi We OCIS Conshiubional Right OF AUe [10 CeS5 OF the law, because We grand Tory Echo Was preceded ty an akest awbicke 3ee 20-21 1M prop ck fndictment under Sth eth amendment consbtukional @ ved D Whether Lhoevidence {9 in safFictent Le support the v edict The Stare produce) msuPFiciens evsdence Lo Sus tard guilt verdict of undca mnr§ ey ond areasonablé doubt on each o€ the comnrs pecause the state wos unable bs pres enk whysical Wi ogcal evi Gace oF Rape. such as PNA evidence ond ire Shed witnesses Wy che nok CR ediOle j A rook EWhethew dhe trial Judge admitted Faise Les Mimony oF AN Ww, Ness es into cuidente that Violated duc process of WW® Law of Mncconst {ution nde Fk dh amendment and (OH avacncdment and unde gle 12, unded IWS BE OF eviduice OF bhe Pebk<o nee Right.und ek aKt? cle % ~ Se Le ~ CONSE Lakional etho oF ducipre cess and awhi he 3 5% eh Fine V3 clence (WAUERIC Ent Lo Sayyp ond Lhe MWdICk cH + whethee, Wout ent counse |. the Pedi bionet athe ¥ Wes Fala ware thepe eruraks ond wot attack va (chi y oF these allegation negin ine (© my oVis on. became Fam -4y meas Lo dre Law ms aule oF ppoFesoi onal conduct ond otto’) eliens pre vited sn devol Malu OF CMAN Hera Ced WRE asia tdnce OF counse! © Own articlts gSe 16 cons fikUkional ERROK, ; Gunebhee Jury tin sk ruclion was Eicnek undch Kule [95 undlet miss Ce ad (7 -3-65 section] dury ine fruc tion Fels ef +to stated and iNnclucké penetratin oF the S eXual oY At of amalethe instruc tion vio lated pebitonet ia undee Sth oth I4th amendment Sucy in struction fan to Kind ad, Wis guilty without eurclcence ow eat day Tury Wyo rac dio pet 5 fafed iin pe trond (A dickens, wl whe ther Pre court Faille dhagranted a dite cted yendict be cause there Was NO proot in Foun of WNA Ev:dence Bind Witnesses Was "io prot undce INS Cade aM 91-363 — See Ce, at whelher Gmabon Pot nov Should Wove lh een granted ‘because Lhe suey verdict was against the w helm ing weight of Lhe eur dencé nok support boy law Oe tne cons Libilion g Lt ot Obeslion presented) . Lewis conviction or siete ly eae of ockild uncle efius been and Statuten) Rupe Fo child oy “ four teen butunder six Leen, along. with his sentence osanhabstual offendlet, do (Fe imprison Meth without parole, Wee arFitrted ondivect oppeal. Lewis v state LUE 363k SPF missCt app Pal. The mandate pssueden Tuly 5 2018 ond stant mo tion io Lew! fitst ap plication He leave, Lew's Filed amolion fox Qehcating WHS clencedd 27 +h claY vE i ukch 2a ¢ Lewes Filed ame lion foe weifbé ceed/onae: ened Itth day of Tune 214 Lewis Esled amofisn Fon application tou Leave fo pro ceed inthe trial Court cod) ann G4 34-| we S dened cth da of Fe bruce Zale whetke A The trial couce indictment prey ucticed) Defendant because 4 Was defective and violakye or his cons titationel Riofut and the Sentence habrtaal under (44477 not stoked (N Lewys indictrrenk The indictment AUS process oF law becquse the grand Tuey was nor preceded by an qeeest D Whe\het Stotoment oF witness conflicting feshy mony m violative oF ie pro ess oF FiFLh and Sg amend rent of us Const, tUbhy Amendcon Cuksthet Gr Tuk oF Proofer tact 1) 167 NeFFective ond (nsurrrcient OUNSE G55 istance act Failure Loi \ Fact % yf le a) 5 invest gate Tack, HMO kance oF RU On coven M6 Ra se deranse and Falure bo Raise veto +55 Ue . Lohte} we pb. TORY INS uckions was duc process of law ye jadice defendant UNAER Miss Code ANNGn-¥-GS Section 1 hecause Tany MStraction (S N