Whether a defendant can challenge sentencing guidelines rules that increase criminal history score and sentence length without jury fact-finding under Apprendi

QUESTIONS PRESENTED This case involves two sentencing guidelines rules. One: rule. directs trial courts.to count: a defendant's convictions at the time of sentencing in calculating the defendant's criminal history. OAR 213-004--0006(2). The other rule limits the length of a consecutive sentence that.a trial court can impose. OAR 213-012-0020(2). ; “After the trial court determined the sentence on defendant's first conviction, it counted that conviction as part of his criminal history in determining, the presumptive sentence for defendant's second conviction. Including the first conviction as part of defendant's criminal history increased his criminal history score and, for that reason, resulted in a higher presumptive sentence for the second conviction. The court followed the same course in determining the presumptive sentences for the remainder of defendant's convictions.” vs er pee “On appeal, the Court of Appeals concluded that both rules increased defendant's sentence based on facts that; under Apprendi v. New J ersey,530 US. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L-Ed.2d 435 (2000), a jury must find beyond a reasonable doubt. State v. Cuevas,263 Or.App. 94, 114, 326 P.3d 1242 (2014). Although the Court of Appeals concluded that the trial court, should have submitted those facts to the jury, it held that the failure to do so was harmless error: Id. On review, we hold that : the two sentencing guidelines rules do not implicate Apprendi and affirm the Court of. Appeals decision on that ground.” ; ca “We affirm the Court of Appeals decision and the trial court's judgment on that ground. | ttd idcision of the Court of Appeals and the judgment of the circuit court are affirmed.” ) StaigoF Oregon‘v. Santos Cuevas, 358 Or 147, 361 P.3d 581 (Or. 2015) Supreme Court Ruling. PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO OREGON SUPREME COURT SANTOS CUEVAS SID#11207100 2 In this ¢ase Supreme Court of Oregon denying consideration of Habeas Corpus review of-a trial court’s trial judge’s omission to poll the jury and no jury poll record available impacts it’s very own holding affirmance of the Appellate court and the trial court judgment. And impacted petitioner's constitutional rights to a jury concurrence and for higher degrees of offenses penalties that are beyond the max of the lesser degree ‘under Apprendi v. New détsey; 530°U:S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000). At initial post-conviction collateral review the unavailable jury poll should have been raised, under federal law, and federal law has yet:to determine that a postconviction court has the judicial power to render a judgment contrary to the state’s. highest court that involves a published opinion on a jury trial federal constitutional Holdings of Courts’ of opinionand the’same court denying consideration of State Habeas Corpus Petition Writ to correct the error cannot be presumed to be correct it’s holdings under state law lacked standard of proof requirement of Federal law _ are only voidable by this court not by any post-conviction court. PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO OREGON SUPREME COURT SANTOS CUEVAS 51D#11207100 3 1.) May a defendant raise and. challenge an Extradition and arrest when a Federal district court of extraditing state does not appoint counsel on state petition for writ of habeas corpus prejudice grounds for lack of governor’s warrant and challenge his convictions? eo Tt 2.) Should an initial post-conviction appointed counsel raise the defaulted claim of no jury record-no jury poll discrimination to challenge the court of opinions holding, and did pro se representation under state law prejudice the petitioner under federal law and at second post-conviction and should the court have denied habeas corpus review after it ordered parties filings? 3.) On miscarriage of justice mis-statement claim defaulted at post-conviction and direct appeal on a Court policyfailed to secure a jury record, no jury poll, no jury record-should jury discrimination Sixth Amendment protectio