Whether the Prosecutor's conduct in charging petitioner with a multiplicitous indictment to gain a tactical advantage so infected the trial with unfairness that the resulting conviction and sentence was a denial of due process

QUESTIONS PRESENTED FOR REVIEW 1.) Whether the Prosecutor's conduct in charging petitioner with a ; multiplicitous indictment to gain a tactical advantage so infected ‘the the trial with unfairness that the resulting conviction and sent:' enceowas a denial of due process. | 2.) Whether trial counsel was constitutionally ineffective due to Counsel's own ' personal interest, that includes being in an . impatient rehabilitation program, undergoing chemotherapy treatments, and -taking Oxycontin 20 & 30mg, effectively abandoning ; petitioner's substantial Sixth Amendment Rights. 3.) Whether subsequent counsel was constitutionally ineffective in failing to include claims relating to trial counsel's ineffectiveness in April 20,2015, Motion for New Trial ("That was late filed") and failed to include trial counsel's condition before and during trial that substantially affected petitioner's , Sixth Amendment Rights. ; 4.) “whether the trial court erred in failing to sufficiently inquire into the conflict petitioner: repeatedly detailed in complaints to the Court in Letters and Email Correspondence to Counsel. 5.) Whether the Trial Court overlooked or misapprehended the substantial evidence and proofs petitioner put forth in support of | ; his claim that Counsel was affected by the Chemotherapy and Oxycontin: The arrest report of the governments witness Tyreese Lomax . dated 11/23/13, that trial counsel via email exchanged claimed : could not find or did not exist, that the District Court claimed in it's 1/24/18 Memorandum that Tyreese Lomax was not arrested for, let alone convicted of pulling a firearm on petitioner's witness who made the complaint and were available to testify at ‘trial, but that trial counsel failed to subpoena due to his own personal interest. 2. ,