Jason Gordon v. Ohio

Question One (New Issue Create bv Ohio Supreme Court’s Declination of Jurisdiction)» Where the State’s Constitution makes it an appeal of right where an Appeal raises questions arising under the Constitution of the State or United States, it a Violation of Federal Due Process for a State’s Highest Court to Decline Jurisdiction and Deprive a Criminal Appellant of a Merit Decision on Claims and Issues that Raise Substantial Constitutional Question and Were Properly Raised Under the Law and Rules of the State and Court? Question Two (Relevant to Ohio Supreme Court Proposition of Law Five): Is it a violation of due process for a state to impose life under adult criminal law for an offense alleged to have been committed as a juvenile where the life sentence was not available had the accused been charged as a juvenile? Question Three (Relevant to Ohio Supreme Court Proposition of Law Six): Does a statute violate the Apprendi Rule, due process, and jury trial rights where that statute permits, allows, or requires a trial court or judge to determine facts not charged in the indictment and proved to the jury beyond a reasonable doubt in order to authorize that trial court or judge to exceed a lesser statutory maximum to impose a greater sentence than the law allows without such fact, where those facts are made essential for the trial court to exceed a lesser statutory maximum to impose a greater sentence? Question Four (Relevant to Ohio Supreme Court Proposition of Law Six):: Is it a violation of the Apprendi Rule, due process, and jury trial rights for a trial court to determine facts not charged in the indictment and proved to the jury beyond a reasonable doubt, where those facts are made essential for the trial comt to exceed a lesser statutory maximum to impose a greater sentence? Question Five (Relevant to Ohio Supreme Court Proposition of Law Six)" Is it a violation of due process and jury trial rights for a trial court or judge to determine facts not charged in the indictment and proved to the jury beyond a reasonable doubt, where those facts are made essential for the trial court or judge to exceed a lesser statutory maximum to impose a greater sentence than the law allows without such fact, and where the records contains no evidence in support of such facts? Question Six (Relevant to Ohio Supreme Court Proposition of Law Six): Does it constitute ineffective assistance of Appellate Counsel for Appellate Counsel to raise and argue the issues set out in Questions 3, 4, and 5? Question Seven (Relevant to State Proposition of Law One & Assignment of Error One: Is it a Violation of Due Process and Jury Trial Rights for a Trial Court to Permit Trial Counsel to Continue to Represent a Defendant when there is a Clear Breakdown in Communication, which allowed Attorney Drake to Deprive (Appellant) of His Intended Defense and Violate (Appellant’s) 6th and 14th Amendment Rights? Pg-1