Whether the petitioner was denied his constitutional rights to a fair and impartial jury trial, due process of law, and to be free from cruel and unusual punishment

QUESTION(S) PRESENTED ARGUMENT I PETITIONER WAS DENIED HIS CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS TO A FAIR AND IMPARTIAL JURY TRIAL DUE TO HIS CONVICTION BASED ON A HUNG JURY. ARGUMENT II PETITIONER WAS DENIED HIS CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO DUE PROCESS OF LAW WHERE AN ERROR IN HIS TRANSCRIPTS WAS ALLEGEDLY CORRECTED OUTSIDE OF HIS PRESENCE. ARGUMENT III THE TRIAL COURT COMMITED REVERSIBLE ERROR WHEN IT DENIED PETITIONER’S MOTION FOR A NEW TRIAL WITHOUT CONDUCTING AN EVIDENTIARY HEARING. ARGUMENT IV MR JOHNSON’S SENTENCE WAS CONSTITUTIONALLY INVALID. HIS 25YEAR MANDATORY MINIMUM VIOLATED BOTH HIS STATE AND FEDERAL RIGHT TO BE FREE FROM CRUEL AND/OR UNUSUAL PUNISHMENT. ARGUMENT V TRIAL COURT ERRONEOUSLY ASSESSED DEFENDANT JOHNSON 20 POINTS UNDER PRV 2. CONTRARY TO MCLA 333.7411. ARGUMENT VI THE TRIAL COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE USED DEFENDANT’S CONVICTION OF FLEEING AND ELUDING POLICE OFFICER 3"! TO ENHANCE HIM TO A FOURTH DEGREE HABITUAL. ARGUMENT VII DEFENDANT JOHNSON IS ENTITLED TO RESENTENCING WHERE THE TRIAL COURT ERRONEOUSLY SCORED DEFENDANT 10 POINTS FOR PRV 3,5 POINTS FOR PRV 5, 20 POINTS FOR PRV 6, AND 20 POINTS FOR PRV 7. ARGUMENT VII DUE PROCESS REQUIRES RESENTENCING WHERE THE LEGISLATIVE ; SENTENCING GUIDELINES WERE MISSCORED AS TO OFFENSE VARIABLES 3,4,10,13, 19, RESULTING IN A SENTENCE BASED ON INACCURATE INFORMATION.