Whether the juvenile life-without-parole sentence is unconstitutional, whether the court abused discretion in sentencing, whether the court relied on false/misleading information, whether the court ignored rehabilitation needs, whether the court prohibited presentation of evidence, whether the evidence supported the conviction and sentence, whether the court's findings on the actual shooter were false, whether the Miller v. Alabama juvenile sentencing requirements are unconstitutional

No question identified. : con = (JUESTZZONS PRESERTED FoR Revzew , The facts, issues, and eudeace relates to Lace A Juvenile Lifec*s deescrou ace celévaatto Said Juvenile Likees re sentencing, The decectFicateon CTroasfe-\decsron preseuts the seaten emg Op tion a ightseatence aS4a Tuveatle gud extcemely long Sentence as an adult, ule ay 7 tong See, MIE r v, Alabama /32 Ket 2455 (20/0); Alleyne vy We$.,/33 Set. 2s (013). Com, vs Munday 78 43d bbl (Pa. Supe o, RO/3), I, Dees the Fact that at Juvenile Life es RESéintencingin 28, fhe Ju age Pécanted the only reason he € lain €d whe dhenred Decectifying Sard Tuvenile Lifer Pet toner fp duvenle system an /992. Make any Seatence and Coavictyon on Sard Charges #n adult Criminal system UAconsh tutional null and Vora oe reece 7 Ai Did Court ercfabuse dicretcon by Sentencing Petitioner tO aman, Festly Ex COSsiVe unven Sonal le, and bias 40 years fe Lfe, Resttutionaud Cos+ of Proseuation ignoring EX Post Facto laws, Sentencing Petitions baseg 7 On Consideration of First degree Mucded Not second degree murdes and agtec Re SRA TEAC S an alleged 9 co-defendant to Qo to SoVeucs tT ee ce te eee 3.Pid Courtect/abuse discretion by relyngon False, Mislead NG, aad haccurute mn formaten to decide Sentmce?., [9 4.Did court er fabuse discretion by Aot reglacing petitionel'S unethical Couct apponte d attorney (Robert Barbato) Who was blatantly Working With prosecatoa agumst petitinnec(his own chenthatevery Stage //ssue of case bo Sabotage case Pe foe bb be Oey XO S. Did cour} Crv/abuse diserehon by \yhoring petitionec's Possibje and/or Actual Rehabilitative needs Mcludmng, but not lmmited +o mental health rehe bil tatrow 2, Co ee cere RM Ci) 6, Dike Cour} errabuse Aj oa or hune ed 6 0F edges o% ce ricnt pion vA (gnorins the as exhibits to Petitmnec's Bret ther en the Wort ation (A pre -Seateace report weet that ZA Formatinn Packet Prose wtida's Seaterce. veaile LiFe c Pefondant's Seat : “tence Me morun dui port is False, misleading and inacc LD atren Aor Cou . F; / eraser, on bEgtegps ay abdressn lu TFET abuse discretvn by . ReSena}, 9 atuse of disecretion/oiasne & groving/not Faved hare Judye Claimmg it Was mar iSSue of Reseatencie pettiaer QMX Cai) depot +e oive an NS, but, tw Months prior gayre 6 Fae d Alle ged co-defendant Juven f 1 Sane Judge gave ate of $0 years for Reseatercang?, er a max (tail) 6, Zs Pennsyl vana's L wy to Noi LS Alleged indcui deal level oF Cul ality mae e a deFendont's AN crime charged Wrth multe defendants uniese eton ‘ $ ~ , . i. ‘e, Uincouthtetioney t. see King life Without Farvle Sentence 9, Did Court ecec/ah ‘Se dike veda, rn AS Jabuse dive cet for Psychologist to do fall e Valiaton of eying Motion Make d agnosis 4pposnted mitigatoa Specs FINE & 49 Niles) wasK+ qua jitie d te do. The 5, romtang OlSE Willram Possi ble an dir actual Rehabil tatsven ey Pet HONE cs }o, Did court et rfabuse disc cetpon et ¢€ © © eg, Ab Hearing by evohibrting Petitioner te tat Re Seatenceng False ada d Mis lea ding documents ded ee fille ot against Petrtoner by petitioner's atharpne ote Made Prosecu tina nn ther Seafeacing me moran tenis IL Did Mt ig ation Spe eral St errgand . bee coeeoese ale Petitioner by providing ines m ple te evalu, teice With falsesmisleading iafocmation eng tion and Ceport Wdecmining Weak testimony? .. Hes 7 7A, Did cf ceporfer . Se es disece 1 Seo ied peers, Analed the Court abuse futace Court proceedmgs by providing bet Se Resentedce hearing Wwonseript Araneae ept Cerate vy Jtranser tion ? Percy AB (iid /3, Did eudence support « Sentence oF conckon en Felony murder Robbery, Couspiruc¢ to Ro ery, . Aud decertifelation? . , a a a {3 Spat EAE LEE Court ee abuse disccetion by Easely Stating there was Conflicting evidence about | cnt Gctual Shooter wa S, despite fact that prosecution ahd Feryy Judge stated no evidence eve p existed te 3 eStabizs, petitioner as the actuct Sheoter 7 Dobe ceeanany IS. Is Vones v, Messpsippi, 14 Sct, '307(20X0, decesinn to reduce Miller y