Whether the sentencing judge's handwritten 'fraudulent interlineations' on the face of the judgment, which changed the defendant's determinate sentence to an indeterminate de facto life sentence without the defendant's understanding and not on the transcripts/record as required by controlling case law, violated the defendant's due process, equal protection, and right to a fair sentencing hearing under the 5th and 14th Amendments

No question identified. : a --+ . —. eo di_Ts Burzard’s udgment_ond Sentence void amd_in valid on ths face due to. the handwritten “fvandulent interlneatlous!! onthe face_by the__. sentemeing Judge which changed Burzand’s determinate sentence to . an indelwminate de facto life sentence without his understanding , amd nok on the tramsevi pts / record as vequived by con telling: — case law jiolaking Due Process, Equal Protect n, and. wight to a . Fake Sontenciag Hea ing winder the Stry bthy and 14th Amendwescts ?