Whether the Georgia statute OCGA 42-1-12 violates the Due Process Clause and the Ex Post Facto Clause of the U.S. Constitution

No question identified. : ayh ae Geok bgy QUESTIO Whee 762 2 CON pea teal pAled Jee & PRESENTED pl pla qke ct Regi sti ce 50 ss dide with Us a tiem Yt fone fue A violet Wag with mniied Sales 0¢GA 42-I12 4 Ceugia lol 07 ~byple: ~ is Alecail with Stote. |, and yrol Cheme ee tated up to 20 Aold pw gall AoA Leajehes ation SH ov thtt bith < yes CoLlGi a 3, ORG A Appellate ongkess Ch tel 65 ale uhens “a fheme CE Co ant t Onl does Not dA Coat, the bi bts, the G Géd SURNA hke Ger REESE 0664 42-1 soit Geote Me tte ¥ peas Pa: Couet a violeteana! 19. 2-/a 6 ‘ 4 =, o _ -ol ~fi . 1 Davie eksen vil © ait b ae 1, on “@ Ataking ohare Gpreal 4 ep buns 8B ay ae the case Yot Nene SHee. of ‘Gata l A ot oe Lountty Fupen Douglas 1 Flat¢th 48 4 egally {ac ed Mn ee hetihed T. Veg te las Cousin Ga W246), Walid OCGA pam YZ? udge aes hot Paty 4 P beithaut heat yuu apdeal U0 it ese oe a 2g fheofcny the r 4hlé 4 Wb LEY fe ant ZA Custody? y be sf Indepatsees Bh having 194, loon , et toe ba 05 8 ee Peach Slade see BH aire oe te Oe Ninhecs al, Lalloun CUR Fen A egalt 1S toh Cos (Ct i! AHack iw therR ou leven Shot in nteed by ed Whar Cow p) Geveaid Cou « COS5, Lasts C af Righis fh Erte long, / mar on that slegall 5 eee te AY leon denintint lehg? 7K Cfent fi unde. Case, CASE Ga 1 9K Rect Oe ania ee luhy? Aneto Net Rec e Bala sangle to ia Ret. me a Hon od Ger A gles’ Flee: (1) g 12 a5 Arty ty pe nek of law due Regusiee onl qi Whee tal yo We ekgia does k often dK fa Foleencas b oat eed Ridle aeeer 12, 1995 lot hes Zu bi dley§ on 0C6a Y2-1-1 (995) te 4 +5 meaning of tm ve" fH" Fuly | ia Coliact h z Requirentn (eka Shalkel ond hecem € ceeie? Ridle 11996, Do +o pe wns Send fen (7: rlghita hon Ao dow ecem ues phan 50M Boh Wd Se Hect 0 Te ee te) PAN ethiney elony, Lal ct AF be pu, “ & Ua windal fel , Ze us wl Ot f the Sine. to be p she. ne deze L1GGG ¥ messin ot e got Zn £c/gua we: C0. Don’ Quest aes Cort : 1 Don’t the hke pa Sexual 0 flesdee k L ae “a pasbaton You he aren ACF Should Mabel be luhy Geok 7 d a the alleged #elon ack fo the § tate And ( r qin Goa 4 follows Jhose Tu Ol. ABS Comm Hed NOt Vidlabes Inve . hat Mocedufe Gk Stalule idelites ch rho State do.” dihy 22 peg, sieattor fo be held So Yh This Colt OOM put» mo Pike the alley Hhoud » due process he nly Can be hoc place Ke Co urslty fice lod fe uty so cm Chhinla Lik h 1 06 db on Galy (12)b ihe labeling, declotrn | cnmiHed7ob hen a Be sure \wohal Can pis SZ 4 CLASS fy ial en SHI ald FE any Sekbal aude el Place Laie fhe ibe. a 0 Henblth kh REG We ‘ (lz Conn ae inte alone ee ne 25 allempicd steal Bun ey! Cottee wns, Phot | S444. Thee pene tea ton ONTYy with Wo I vel J Attempted digihia/ Coduicted ¢ Phe Suth o Flense. ih 2p y NjUuby UaAl d e& Fla (ry bate CAninwt fileele here 4 Not A ComPpleded fle ylang fern elles F ceitme] Caseichae? 2 ums alot Ged i dleys Fla Conkeact beh gi? G phecrden+ Nao eked te Register » he A ltt pre. his dette ih Geet tndscimevts Could IN Cesena raha L: ¢ ‘ A pakee Ws FI ppainit Lou, uStete, 24° 5s WAY Is Fla fetta esas Davi Biel fe h dley Ve ’ ewe My ius bide! Counsel's, Retuse te . Remdvel NGech liane m ons a 56 tle te Adley y/lege/t minndate Issued (Bary C4” Ars Cr toa} JA J oe paie 4 of AI i On the same page, list all cases in other courts that are directly related to the case in this Court. A case is “directly related” if it arises from the same trial court case as the case in this Court (including the proceedings directly on review in this case), or if it challenges the same criminal conviction or sentence as is challenged in this Court, whether on direct appeal or through state or federal collateral proceedings. Below is an example of the format that should be used for this list: * Smith v. Jones, No. 18-ev-200, U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania. Judgment entered Oct. 1, 2018. * Smith v. Jones, No. 18-1200, U. S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. Judgment entered Apr. 15, 2019. Vi.