Whether a defendant's fundamental right to equal protection of the laws was infringed

No question identified. : . —— Eh ep = ae ASE ep ; : Ly os . oo | od , . . . ’ n . ‘ 4 _ esblon “Presented Whedner A defendants Sundamental Right bo equ\ Pkorection of Nne \aws WAS \nbainged — WMeGe. Me HAWDISAICE APPelbete Coues Conskkuckion of a statute comtandiats Ynrk oF Section 4-4o05(b) PuRSUANK bo PeoPle VRina\and Ror TL\ APPCAA) 190549. | | ] . “TABIE Cf Coments oe 7Atle of Authotiies tL Opinion Belo TuRsdichioa _ de Conaoniondl Provision Inyelved_ Tins Qyedutes nove) Gratoment ot heCase Se Reason Log GAnnting Petition ___ =18e “Tris cout: chunk ggant cemel@gl Fo determine whelheR Me HAT DISe, Mibllave Conky contittalion oka suntute, pursuant Lo Veter. Rrolands Bo1d Clapp 2d) 130594; And, Perfle v. Riaohand,gor7 Tl Wat, denied dekeian's constilution| quitirrtee. +0 equal PRotethion of he \AWS.. . Conclude APPendty fl: Apel Cong, Order APPevdiy Bz APRalle Coutk onde R (modified upon Rehenking ) ArRondix ds “TRin\ Cove ovdeg APPendnt: Denial of TArdion Yor leave to SppeRl, bo Tins SuPReme Cour i Table of Aullyokittes Cased Paes PePle \eRine|ind, 80 5 RV APP Gd 120594 _S7gaID Peovle VeRO =X Wau TRIO ulnar Stara ve Si, W5lo US, 81, BHM |AOK Beh paehtla\ he WAV LE. 2d oA). IQ Rugged] ve Soulneth Truss, le Tedd My Mo ,249 Th. Des NSr.lIq NE-ad 309M) RedPle vPere2 dork Eh W\5qhA 385 Dee. NWI NE 3A Rooflle vs HumeR 80V TE) Wed 19,564 D\-Vet BAG AS NE. 90 We Saawyes S5 TLCS 5/3-9O05(b)(West A019) AEs il a . IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES _ . | PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI . Petitioner respectfully prays that a writ of certiorari issue to review the judgment below. OPINIONS BELOW “ | { ] For cases from federal courts: oe | . The opinion of the United States court of appeals appears at