Was it proper for the state to intentionally mislead the court

QUESTION(S) PRESENTED : \. Was it proper For the State +o intentionally mislead Mme courk when i+ required that petitioner show the presumption of ceqality” when the real issve that was presevited was thot Fhe judge aggravated petitionerg sentence without a ucy terial in order to determine the aggravating circumstances it would use to enhance petitioner's Sentence * Petitioner has shown that he should hove received a Teial ecior to Sentencing according to stetrute pursuauit to 31-18-15.) CA) NMSA 1978, inorder to allow agury to Find the nogtavating Circumstances necessary to enhance pzritioner’s Sentence, ; 2. Does Pebitfonec cetain the right To ® jury determination on The aggravating circumstances Surrounding the offense or Concerning the offender even though Petitions did not Stipulate tothe relevant Facts in his plea agreement, lout rather he stipulated to the 2lements of the crime to which he plad, not Tothe aggravating factor(s) or . Circumstances) 7 The Court inthis Case choseto accept petitioners plea agreement as a valid waiver of the eight to agury determination of He aggravating Circumstance tw order 40 amhance petitioners sentence even though the record did not snow That petitioner Knew that he had the right to waive Theat jury trial to determing the aggravoting Circumstance and second thar by pleading guilty he was Uti motel yy waiving that particular right. 3, Should the \ower Courts have dismissed pebitionee’s case When they Clearly Stated in their cesponse thet: “There is no dispute that the plea agreement lacked a Speci Fic waiver of tral by Jury Megarding aggravating Factors: and’ Similarly, there is na dispute thet the district Court did nob*comply With the procedural CLavirements oP Hae Version of 31-18-18... 1" place” ot the time of Sentencing’ Ratitioner has continuously argued this spzciPic Fact in his habeas to the courts to get themto understand thet his sixth omendment right had been violated and that he requested itto be addressed avew Phroveh The apprals court in New Maoxreo agreed based on State Vv. King , 2007 -NMCA-130, 142 NUM. 699.a0nd Fhe United States Supreme Court has agreed in Cunningham v. CaliPornta , © 47 U.S. 270,127 S.Ct. 856 (2007) that the Court violated petitoners Sixth cmendment might +o have ajury dttermination Whether aggravating Circumstances existed iw enhancing PrtitHoners Sentence,