Did the States Highest Court abuse its discretion when it failed to acknowledge the State's Legislature had repealed its indeterminate Sentencing Law (ISL) and replaced it with the Determinate Sentencing Law (DSL) with a new purpose and policy declaration

QUESTIONS PRESENTED AND REASONS . FOR GRANTING CERT., ARE AS FOLLOWS: ~ 1. Did the States Highest Court abuse its discretion when it failed to acknowledge the State's Legislature had repealed its indeterminate Sentencing Law (ISL) and replaced it with the Determinate Sentencing Law (DSL) with a new purpose and policy declaration and that in order to reenact the repealed ISL by way of Initiative, the subject had to be presented in the proposition because the State Constitution prevented the Author/Drafter of the 1978 Prop. 7 Initiative from adopting a section of the repealed law without reenacting it as amended? 2. Did the States Highest Court abandon and ignore State and Federal precedent and the Rule of Law when they knew that Prop. 7's Author/Drafter as a State Senator, could not use the People's Initiative via Prop. 7, when he did not have the votes for a Referendum, to circumvent the DSL and the Legislative Declared Policy, passed as an urgency measure, that mandated that ALL persons whose crime was committed (along with their family members) had a vested right to know at sentencing the exact punishment for the crime itself as determined by the Legislature and imposed to a finality by a court of law? 3. Did the States Highest Court abuse its discretion by ignoring controlling USSG authority and its own precedent that forbids vesting in a Statewide Ministerial Agency, under the same branch charged with a person's prosecution, to decide the strictly judicial power of who is and who is not a threat to public safety without a jury trial that has resulted in different persons committing the same crime serving different punishments within the sentencing structure in violation of the State Constitution and the U.S. Constitution's Fifth, Sixth, Seventh, and Eighth Amendments, as codified under the Fourteenth Amendment in direct conflict with Alleyne, Apprendi, Ring, Specht, & Olivas, infra? 4. Did the California Courts violate this Court's precedent as well as its own Constitutional mandate when failing to give Petitioners a decision on the merits of their claims (See: Cal. Const Art VI §§ 13 & 14 and infra at pg. 5). — ; 5. Lastly, because the Legislature mandated in its Legislative Declaration that every person committing the same crime must serve the same punishment that can only be reduced by the earning of good-time and participation credits, has the State's failure to administer its sentencing laws according to their terms and provisions and by taking their earned Pen. Code § 2931 credits without a hearing and/or in violation of the authority of law (See: infra at pgs. 8-14 & 17). & (ii) ;