Whether the court's resolution represents an unforeseeable and retroactive judicial expansion of narrow and precise statutory language that denied petitioner due process-fair warning

No question identified. : QUESTION(S} PRESENTED On Petitioner's second direct appeal, in resolving Petitioner's sufficiency of evidence claim.regarding the existence of a single statutory aggravating factor that extended his sentence:beyond the statutory maximum sentence that could be.:imposed, -Illinois Appellate Court interpreted the "general verdict form" evidence used to prove the existence of the aggravating factor, to reflect conclusions of matters of ; facts determined on Petitioner's first direct appeal, an interpretation that invaded the province of the jury and effectively relieved the State of Its burden. of proving the existence of the aggravating factor "anew", a novel interpretation that ; is contrary to Illinois Statutes and more than 30 years of . ; Illinois Supreme Gourt's decisions intepreting the Statutes involved, in order to salvage the natural life sentence imposed ; on Petitioner: : I.) WHETHER, IN. DOING SO, THE COURT’S RESOLUTION REPRESENTS ' AN UNFORESEEABLE AND RETROACTIVE JUDICIAL: EXPANSION OF NARROW AND PRECISE STATUTORY LANGUAGE THAT DENEED PETITIONER DUE PROCESS-FAIR WARNING? : ; ; II.) WHETHER, IN DOING SO, THE COURT“RE-WEIGHED THE:: : , "GENERAL VERDICT FORM" EVIDENCE IN. A MANNER THAT © DENIED PETITIONER DUE ‘PROCESS-LIBERTY . INTEREST IN . HAVING THE JURY MAKE PARTICULAR FINDINGS.:OF THE : AGGRAVATING FACTOR BASED ON REASONABLE: EVIDENCE? _ LIL.) WHETHER THE ‘COURT. DENIED ‘PETITIONER: ADEQUATE ACCESS TO ; THE. COURT; HIS ‘DUE PROCESS RIGHT TO BE HEARD ON HIS ae SUFFICIENCY OF EVIDENCE CLAIM;WHEN. IT RULED PETITIONER COULD NOT: CHALLENGE. THE ‘SUFFICIENCY. OF THE "GENERAL ; . ’VERDICT RORM" EVIDENCE. USED TO. PROVE. THE EXISTENCE OF THE FACTOR TO MAKE HIM : ELIGIBLE FOR A NATURAL LIEE SENTENCE? a ~~ £ ,