Whether the Florida Court of Appeals unreasonably applied this Court's precedent

QUESTIONS PRESENTED — Question #1: Whether the Florida Court of Appeals unreasonably applied this . Court's precedent when it upheld summary denial of a postconviction claim alleging ineffective assistance of counsel because the lawyer failed to properly investigate exculpatory and impeaching evidence of a controlled phone call, in conjunction with an interview, preventing counsel from properly advising Petitioner of the law relative to the facts, rendering his plea involuntary? Question #2: Whether the Florida Court of Appeals unreasonably applied this Court's precedent when it upheld summary denial of a postconviction claim alleging ineffective assistance of counsel because Petitioner's plea was not knowingly, voluntarily or intelligently entered, due to counsel's multiple alleged acts or omissions? . Question #3: Whether the Florida Court of Appeals unreasonably applied this . Court's precedent when it upheld summary denial of a postconviction claim alleging ineffective assistance of counsel because the lawyer failed to challenge the validity of the probable. cause affidavit(s) and search warrant used to search the defendant's | home and seize his computer, where the affidavit(s) were unsigned; based upon perjury; and/or otherwise deficient per the report of a forensic examiner? . . iy