Whether a sentence enhancement based on prior convictions violates a defendant's Sixth and Fourteenth Amendment rights by not being submitted to a jury for determination beyond a reasonable doubt

I. It was a Jurisdictional Defect of the proceedings, by not allowing the jury to find Petitioner guilty, with proof beyond a reasonable doubt, of a sentence enhancement increasing his punishment. In violation of Petitioner ’s Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendment Rights of U.S. Constitution. Ayprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 490, (2000), see also, Alleyne v. United States , 570 U.S. 99 (2013). The question presents an issue of First Impression between State and Federal Courts. This U.S. Supreme Court opined to decide the question of ‘recidivism ’ for another day when a Petitioner brings forth to this court.a.) The issue presents a conflict of state and federal courts were federal courts have agreed that Defendants who challenge the ‘identity ’ of sentence enhancements of prior/convictions or recidivism, are entitled to a jury hearing, after jury trial. State v. Freeman, 27 Vt. 523 (1885), et. al. (Petitioner Objected to enhancement.)b.) This U.S. Supreme Court says, “it is arguable that Almendarez-Torres was incorrectly decided, and a logical application of their reasoning today should apply if the “recidivist ” issue were contested. ” Apprendi did not contest this argument. However, the court states, “given its unique facts, it surely does not warrant rejection of the otherwise uniform course of decisions during the entire history of our jurisprudence. ” Avvrendi v. New Jersey, supra. Opinion by JUSTICE STEVENS, part-IV, [*489].c-) II. Petitioner was denied his Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendment Rights to the United States Constitution and Due Process, because the jury verdict form did not include the sentence enhancement. Furthermore, because prior are considered ‘elements ’ that must be submitted to a jury, proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Apprendi v. New Jersey. 530 U.S. 466, 490, (2000), Commonwealth v. Paean, 445 Mass. 161 (2005), et. al. a.) The question presents a conflict of law, as an issue of First Impression between State, Federal District & Federal Circuit Courts. b.) “This practice of including the fact of a prior conviction in the indictment and trying it to the jury helps to prove the rule that that fact is an ‘element ’ because it increases the punishment by law.” Avvrendi v. New Jersey, supra , [*510 *511 *512]. State v. Haynes, 35 Vt. 570, 572-573 (1863), et. al. Prior Convictions and Recidivism “are” founded on “clearly established ” federal law, establishing them as “elements ” of a crime. Numerous courts support petitioner ’s arguments referenced within, Avvrendi v. New Jersey , 530 U.S. 466 (2000), [*507 *508 *509 *521]. Prior convictions increase punishment beyond prescribed maximum, thereby becoming an “element ” for the jury to decided.c-) l III. Statute MCL 769.12; 769.13; and MSA 28.1085, as amended by 1994 P.A. 110, are unconstitutional, and fraudulent, because they deny several constitutional guaranties. Including the right to a trial by jury, and the right to be proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of every element of the crime charged, including Judge found facts. Thus Violating Petitioner ’s Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendment Rights of the United States Constitution. a.) The question presents a conflict of law, and is an issue of First Impression between State and Federal Courts. Prior are considered ‘elements ’ by Federal Courts that must be presented to the jury. Michigan statutes remove this assessment from the jury under a ‘preponderance of evidence ’ theory. This practice renders petitioner ’s trial unconstitutional, as all the elements to identity weren ’t proven ‘beyond a reasonable doubt. ’b.) In Alleyne v. United States, 570 US. 99, (2013). JUSTICES SOTOMAYOR, and BREYER, Justices, held that a legislature may not “remove from the jury the assessment of facts that increase the prescribed range of penalties to which a criminal defendant is exposed. ” 530 U.S., at 490, 120 S. Ct 2348, 147 L. Ed 2d 435. “The mere fact that a state legislature has placed a criminal component w