Whether the Pennsylvania lower court and appellate court's decision dismissing petitioner's second pro se PCRA petition as untimely is contrary to Pennsylvania's own established Supreme Court law and with this Court's holding in Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266, 108 S.CT. 2379, 101 L.ED. 245 (1988), regarding the prison mail box rule

QUESTION(S) PRESENTED : 1. WHETHER THE PENNSYLVANIA LOWER COURT AND APPELLATE COURT'S DECISION DISMISSING PETITIONER'S SECOND PRO SE PCRA PETITION AS UNTIMELY IS CONTRARY TO PENNSYLVANIA’S OWN ESTABLISHED SUPREME COURT LAW AND WITH THIS COURT'S HOLDING IN HOUSTON V. LACK, 487 U.S. 266, 108 S.CT. 2379, 101 L.ED. 245 (1988), REGARDING THE PRISON MAIL BOX RULE. (See Reason No. D) 2. WHETHER PETITIONER’S CLAIM THAT TRIAL COUNSEL FAILED TO INFORM HIM OF THE SEVERANCE OFFER SATISFIES THE TWO . PRONGS OF STRICKLAND V. WASHINGTON 466 U.S. 688, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed. 2d 674 (1984) TEST. (See Reason No. II) 3. WHETHER TRIAL COUNSEL HAS POWER TO FORGO A SEVERANCE . OFFER AND INSTEAD INDUCE HER CLIENT TO PLEA GUILTY RELYING ON AN AGREEMENT WITH THE PROSECUTOR THAT WAS NEVER FULFILLED. (See Reason No. ID) 4. WHETHER TRIAL COUNSEL HAS THE POWER TO FORGO A SEVERANCE OFFER AND PLEA HER CLIENT GUILTY AGAINST HER CLIENTS EXPRESSED DESIRES AND THEREBY WAIVING HER CLIENTS CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO PLEA NOT GUILTY AND HIS DUE PROCESS RIGHT TO A FAIR OPPORTUNITY TO DEFEND AGAINST THE STATE’S ACCUSATIONS. (See Reason No. II) oo I . 5. WHETHER PETITIONER HAS THE RIGHT UNDER THE CONSTITUTION TO ENFORCE A PLEA AGREEMENT WHERE HE SIGNED THE GUILTY PLEA RELYING UPON TRIAL COUNSEL'S ADVICE OF AN AGREEMENT WITH THE PROSECUTOR; AND WHETHER PETITIONER NOW IS ENTITLED TO THE BENEFIT OF THAT AGREEMENT. (See Reason No. IID) 6. WHETHER TRIAL COUNSEL'S FAILURE TO INVESTIGATE SEVERAL DEFENSES BEFORE DECIDING TO PLEA HER CLIENT GUILTY VIOLATES HER CLIENTS SIXTH AND FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT RIGHT OF THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION. (See Reason No. IV) 7. WHETHER PETITIONERS SECOND CLAIM REGARDING NEW DISCOVERED EVIDENCE IS TIMELY FILED PURSUANT TO THE PENNSYLVANIA SUPREME COURT DECISION IN COMMONWEALTH V. LARK, 746 A.2D 585 (PA. 2000). (See Reason No. V) 8. WHETHER THE LOWER COURT AND THE PROSECUTOR HAS POWER TO MISLEAD THE APPELLATE COURTS BY PRESENTING FALSE AND MISLEADING STATEMENTS; AND DOES SUCH STATEMENTS VIOLATE PETITIONER'S 14TH AMENDMENT RIGHT TO THE EQUAL PROTECTION OF THE LAW. (See Reason No. VI) Ir |