Whether it is unconstitutional to impose two separate strikes on Petitioner for the same act under two separate statutes

Questions Presented . 1) Whether it is unconstitutional, i-e., cruel and unusual, double jeopardy, and a violation of the due process clause to impose two separate strikes on Petitioner for allegedly shooting a person once with a pellet simply because the prosecution charged Petitioner for the same act under two separate statutes, i.e., corporal injury to a person in a dating relationship (Penal Code Section 273.5(a)) and assault with a deadly weapon (Penal Code Section 245(a)(1). Clearly none of the offenses for which Petitioner was ultimately convicted rise to the level of a felony after the only arguable felony was reduced to a wobbler after his appeal. This case has nationwide legal significance because the three strikes statute is designed to punish repeat behavior not to punish the same act multiple times under separate code sections. That consequence was not envisioned by the California legislature. 2) Whether it is arbitrary thereby unconstitutional under the First, Fifth, Sixth, Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution to charge Petitioner with felonies when the statutes provide each of the crimes are “wobblers,” offenses that can be charged alternatively as misdemeanors, when the statutes set forth no guidelines to determine when each crime is a felony as opposed to a misdemeanor. Petitioner alleges California Penal Code Sections 245(a)(1), 273,5(a), and Penal Code Sections 646.9(a) are constitutionally vague because they permit a court to convict a person of a felony, but set forth absolutely no guidelines for a judge to follow in deciding which alleged crime is a felony or a misdemeanor. The judge in this case was not guided by constitutional principles and he had far too much discretion in deciding not to reduce the crimes to misdemeanors. The trial judge had to know no judge should have issued the restraining order and that it would be declared void and there was no evidence of great bodily injuries (GBIs). He dismissed the final GBI for insufficient evidence and nothing supported a finding that the remaining charges could be charged as felonies. 2 II. _—_