Whether a state sentencing statute that mandates consecutive sentences for habitual offenders without judicial discretion violates due process and constitutes cruel and unusual punishment

No question identified. : Bewsamin Fi WuTemn Robert May b/atden, cb al, , USCAZ Wo lB-tY SS bisérick Courts case wo, [-23-Cb00909" Page (2) Apply to Unconstituctowal Sentences Chat vun aby | based ow Mi xin @ ob Suriedickional Statutes bne MAndabery as M del. C. 4214 @) Senbencing of Lika Um prison rrcHt, Awd the Other bellows hogy Jar Sentae Sentences bul dines Lo Maw iny M Dea! C9836 of Delaware Rrobabion act tn Whiten care Adhere. the Shakes wok Seckngali te Sintince, ander ¥21¢@)-The Court Soee ok hapa —Tavis diction bo declare bi thouk a Stakes EL. Dto kon unter 42 1h); Because A Rule “|, eq deal of 2%€o r0 yrars (mprigonmen€ ; Cpu Coineide bogether Where Habrbual bender l, Hous only Ptadatory bime of ALL renbener with «chance bor Pays la jy / fayears, “Deoladions not jurisdiehionally Allaw far fltbitaal Mlnd ate, / Pleas Gvant me more tian my Argamtpttyer Judge STLFTEL on” June r9, 190 did nol V0 Mow my rintence was 96ing bo iurkout ~ Bubb has h be unconstsktomE] LT cpu ’ Serpe do & Peing declared ag) (Abita! Khon dar, Jushees Lhavk Lov Fou Lene om LMs Legal I atl» somthing then”, Respecblally Submthed Benjamin Fi b/hibeman SRM” 96 09 CY James 7 Vacg hn Corr. Center 1181 Paddock Road Smyrna, Delewar~ S99 ?7 Dated: Feb, LF, LOU Berjon—F libedonan