Whether the Eighth and 14th Amendments are violated when a court applies a capital sentencing statute to a non-capital offense and instructs the jury inaccurately about the potential for a death penalty

1. Whether the Eighth^hdil ’4th Amendments to the United States Constitution are violated, and this Court ’s holdings are contradicted, 1 when a court has stated, on record, that they had sentenced a person under a capital sentencing statute for a non-capital offense, applying firstdegree murder to a non-capital offense despite that state ’s supreme court holding a first-degree murder conviction automatically authorized a possible death sentence to be imposed, and upon a conviction for first-degree murder, that state ’s written legislation separates it from all other non capital offenses and gives procedural requirements that a death penalty hearing be held? 2. Whether the Sixth, Eighth, and 14th Amendments to the United States Constitution are violated when a court applies a capital offense to a non-capital case, obtains a conviction on that purported capital offense by inaccurate and misleading instructions to the jury, imposes a sentence under a capital sentencing statute for a non-capital offense, and then subsequently justifies its rationale through reliance upon an Ex Post Facto principle despite that same state ’s supreme court previously holding the offense in fact of law authorized a possible death sentence and that state has enacted procedural law dictating that, upon a conviction, a death penalty hearing shall be performed? * 3. If, under the Eighth and 14th Amendments to the United States Constitution, by legal definition a capital offense is one in which a possible sentence of death can be imposed and said 1 See, e.g., Apprendi v. New Jersey, 536 U.S. 466 (2000); Ringv. Arizona, 536 U.S. 545 (2002); Erlingerv. United States, 2024 U.S. LEXIS 2715 (2024). ' offense has a separate corresponding capital sentencing statute, where a death penalty hearing procedurally must occur, then if a conviction of said offense automatically authorizes a possible death penalty sentence to be considered and under its corresponding capital sentencing statute required a death penalty hearing be held before the jury who convicted, may the court prior to trial instruct both counsel and the jury that the offense before them was a non-capital offense and the death penalty was not involved, or does this violate procedural law as well as constitutional law? 4. Whether the Sixth and 14th Amendments to the United States Constitution and this Court ’s holding in Erlinger are violated where a court applies ah enhanced offense of a legally defined capital offense for a non-capital offense without a jury’s decision for the sole, purpose of enhancing the minimum possible sentence from ten years in prison to natural life in prison? 5. If a court, prior to trial, is presented with nine motions and letters to dismiss trial counsel by a person, yet the court does not hold a colloquy hearing and denies all motions and letters, denying the person the right to defend himself at all trial proceedings including sentencing, does this violate the Fifth, Sixth, Eighth and 14th Amendments to the United States Constitution and create an ‘in the interest of justice ’ instance?