Lonzie Nichols v. Mississippi

Questtons presented

1. whether a state’s application ano enforcement of its Procedural Bars via its highest appellate Court in Certain Cases resultin annihilation Ano Diminution of Fundamental Constitutional rights ano Claims ora Claim within a Particular Cause of ACTION As SPECIES OF VALUABLE ANO PERSONAL PRIVATE INCORPOREAL OR INTANGIBLE PROPERTY THAT IS “TAKEN BY” ToDIClAL OECREE“FqR Governmental use ^ithout’Just Compensation anothe processOue in comport with due process ? A. WHETHER THE SCOPE OF THE FEDERAL EXPOSTFACTO LAW C LAUSEtS) OF united states Constitution article 8t$ lo extends To situa­ tions WHERE AS A RESULT OF STATE LEGISLATIVE FIAT A "NEW" CRIMS OR offense IS CREATED USING THE SAME PRE-EXISTING statutory elements to define the "new* offense while simultan­ eously ChawGinGthe Prior sentencing Guidelines But not Give the “new” sentencing Provision retroactive retrospective effect?

2. whether the foreclosure ano Precluding of retroactive and Retro­ spective APPLICATION OF A "NEW** SENTENCING GUIDELINE0RTHE SAME STATUTORY ELEMENTS DEFINED FOR MURDER UNDER PRE-EXISTING L Aw VIOLATES THE OuE PROCESS CLAUSES ANO EGlUAL PROTECTION CLAUSE of v. s. c. ART. m, 5 1, Ano run afoul of the ex Post facto law clauses (U.S.C.ART.X, 55? H. WHETHER THE ” NEw“ STATUTORY SENTENCING GUIDELINES FoR MuROER CREATE A ENTITLEMENT AnO A PRESUMPTION OF AND A “LIBERTY INTER­ EST” PROTECTED BY THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE OF U.S.C. ART. 1%$! TO THE Class of offenders affected thereby But precluded from accessto ATTAIN A ”\SURY DETERMINATION ’ TO IMPOSE A LIFE SENTENCE RATHerthan a Fudges imposition of a life sentence once Prescribed UNDER PRE-EXISTING LAW RO?