Whether the California Three Strikes Law's sentencing provisions violate due process when applied to a defendant with prior convictions that may be constitutionally insufficient

QUESTIONS PRESENTED FOR REVIEW 2 Whether the indeterminacy of the wide-ranging inguiv regvired by the'determinativon claysé ) in subdivision (A) of California Penal Code Section _ (170,14, both denies Fatr notrce to defendauts and invites arbitrary enforcement by judges 2,Whether the seriovs ov stevkes prrer felony convietvons allegations against petitioner were 50 Tofally devoid of evden tra ry support as te render his status as a three sheyv Ker Felony offender unconsti ty trenal wndec the due process Clavse of the Fourteehth Amend ment RELIEF SOUGHT Petitvoner prays Cor awrity of habeas Corpus directed to the Sup ecior CourFe® Los Angeles County m Cal’focnta, and to the Honorable jvdge Tames B, Pierce of the Long Beach Supercar Court, directing and commanding these cespondents bo set aside or vacate petrbvoners habibyal criminal conVeetron as a three Striker ef Pender and sentences according to the opinton or mandate oF this Court ; a UNAVAILA BILITY OF RELIEF IN OTHER COURTS ‘No olher covet can g vant tne relrel sought by thes pethon becavse Caliburnas covcts have constrved Calitecnia Penal Code Section (AC.S)IF0-1a (1) ween ly and the Untedl States Dictrict Courts of Califernia anal Ninth Coccuit Court 6 € Appeals Pollowed its soundnesse Also because no judge or circuit justice has not ever reviewed Pe honerS case and all the lower courts have denied relret based on procedural grands, never on the ments.In this case Pehbrawer is in a sim tuation im whreh the Nenth Cecewt Court of Appeals dented Pebboner ¢ Application for avthorizatvon to Pilea second or successive habeas pebtbron on August Ad, AOR4 (Ape endix D af ppal-2a) and he has no other remedy buf te pray to this Court to exercise its or vginal habeas jurisdrclven under either cies Cou-ts rule 20.4 &), BUS. C8 §16 51a) Y Ad4@se)ana U.S, Const. Art, d 37/82; CE Fel Kee y. Tucp™, 518 VS. 651,658 661-662.(1996) : UNAVAILABILITY OF ANY OTHERFORM OF RELIEF di Me olher reaare velveF wil be suFFrevent to protect the s” y an rig Cae] Petitrower or preserve the ability bo seek review of the lower court judgment because di recl a eal eFiten Gor review, Stabe habeas cor “Ss, federal haboad/ /. f or Cectrora ci From Fual ywdgmend wore and are. inadegdate , Hi