Whether the Sixth Amendment requires advisement of an unauthorized sentence during plea negotiations and whether procedural bars should be precluded for unauthorized sentences

No question identified. : / . HIGHLY UNIQUE & IMPORTANT QUESTIONS OF LAW PRESENTED There is an epidemic of unlawful sentencing in California that exceeds beyond an accused's maximum possible release date, and only this Court can put a stop to it. Its disturbing that California imposes so many illegal or unlawful sentences, that they have formulated a term to address it in court; calling it an "unauthorized sentence." (1. In California, a pretrial detainee is denied access to the very laws that are the cause of his or her confinement, and must rely upon his or her attorney, who in most cases, have their cTient plead unknowingly to an unauthorized sentence. It has been 55 years since this Court held the Sixth Amendment required an accused be advised s/he is waiving certain constitutional rights before accepting a plea (Boykin v. Alabama, 395 US 742, 748 71969)). Should this apply to an unauthorized sentence? {2. Does the "knowing and intelligent" “eyes wide open" clause of the Sixth Amendment require that an accused be advised that an negociated plea s/he is entering into is unauthorized? (3. State law prohibits an accused from complaining about a plea s/he entered into is unauthorized (People v. Hester, 22 Cal.4th 290, 295 (2000)), which conflicts with clearly defined law of this Court that holds an attorney's ineffectiveness is conclusively estab; lished where that attorney either negociates, or fails to object to, an unlawful unauthorized sentence (United States v. Glover, 531 US 198, 203-04 (380333 also see United States v. Conley, 349 F.3d. 837 (5th Gir. 2003)). Should this Court invalidate Hester and its prodigy? — (4. Lexis-Nexis reveals that most California prisoners forced into federal court to challenge their unauthorized sentences fail due ‘to procedural bars. As an unauthorized sentence is reprehensible to the concept of justice and fair play, should this Court preclude procedural bars for unauthorized sentences? (See e.g. McQuiggin v. Perkins, 569 US 383 (2013(gateway threshhold test for claims o actual innocence to overcome procedural bars [which California also ignores])). (6. In McNeil v. Patuxent, 407 US 245 (1972), this Court overturned : State regulations that permitted the over-detention of an inmate beyond his lawful release date, noting that such deliberate overdetention at the time only occurred in “Communist China" (Id, at 254 £n.3). If those Justices could only look ahead at 52 years of "progress"; would they be-"shocked" or "appalled" to learn that it no longer occurs in China, but in the Great State of California with acquiescence of the judiciary? Li . FABLE OF CONTENTS I. Petition for Writ of Certiorari . . 1. 1 2 6 ee we ee eh we ee veh Ld II. Jurisdiction & Orders Below . . «6 6 ee we ee ew ee ew ee we ew ew ct III.