Whether the California courts were correct in stating that the petitioner's case was final, because the California Senate Bill 1393 resentencing disposition only stated that his sentence was remanded back to superior court and not vacated

QUESTION(S) PRESENTED LT. Ts. court Should Grant A RevieW To SETTLE. The QuESTION WEATHER THE CAFORAIA CourTS WERE CoRRECT IN STATING TwaT THe PETITIONERS CASE Was FiNaAb, Because Wis CAhFoRWIA SENATE Bill 1393 ReSENTENCING DisPosition ONLY STATED THAT His SENTENCE Was. REMANDED Back To SuPerioR CourT ano Not VACATED. Back To SuPeRiOk CouRT: For RESENTENCING, WHEN THe CRIMWWAL PRoceEDINGS AS A WHodE HAD NoT EnveED. RESULTING IW THE PETITIONER Being Barren FRoM RECEIVING BENEFITS FROM A NEWLY ENACTED CalForwia wawW, SENATE Bibb 367, ViobaTing THe PETITIONERS FouRTEENTH AMENDMENT, Ea@uab ClauSE Right. IT. Ths CourRT SHovuLDd GRANT .A ReVieW To SETTLE THE ITmPoRTaANT AND RECURING Question OF, Do THE. THE California SENTENCING CourTS Have THE RiguT To ViobaTE aA DEFENDANTS SixXTH AMENDMENT CONSTITUTIONAL RigHT, To HAVE a TuRY AND Not A SUDGE DETERMINE BEYON A ReasoNapie Dovet, THE Facts SuPPoRTING AN UPPER TERM Sen TENE.