Whether the petitioner's due process rights were violated when several arguable issues apply to why the petitioner's sentence was excessive given the 18 years when the maximum is 20 years, and whether the state assumed provocation was not an order when the video that depicts the incident contains a quote to the contrary

No question identified. : cent ee ce ee well BTOMS FREBELTEDD a nee (Manuela Hetniade2) lnttdlnd Lior pry case.._when Several avguable ments cpply (2 why wae, petiionee (luni Themis pose —gven HB years when te Mainimnua 1S 20 years How Can. the. Stale. assume _provecaboa wasnt ta _ordes> Whea _video_that—bleaks th_ 4 dt d_coataus_a__qudi_2 Why_was tro piialonteats acy ewowaber wir Krew He actnas in my trial, thy _is_ this no whee inthe pranseniptes thy was denied the _chaice tore ray | owyer On __ 3 EL Ah _batht6._ Genel bppeal snl Cappil of Tht. C482. on ee. COLL fp GC 4 likot all patches te foe_procccdng 1a tek. ott tshase.judgeatats_ Hh. Subject 0 bis pebihwd (S25. a Pf ——_OLLME_OL Tt. STAT ELLE TE. RECENM DER ——CLELK OL Te. C/ ROUT COW Jo CLERK OF THE. SUPREME. COQURT_OF LLLAMWOLS Opinions BOM $3.2. Duasdich0en 9 lg consthhipaaal ¢ Statulocy provitins javolved 29 —~ Stakmeat of the. Case. pg @ Redsons toc _grinthg Hewiak pg. Fo Conclusion pg lO $$$ net 0F Arena es Arppeadixc A Deusina ol Stak. Couc of Appeals _ Appeedix & Detigwa of Stade. Taal Couch