Was Agpli canl's guilty pleac) involuwtaay duce 40 counsels wet echve deficient Assistance jw Tetality duaing all Stages of the caiminel process ?

QUESTION(S) PRESENTED G) Was Agpli canl's guilty pleac) involuwtaay duce 40 counsels wet echve deficient Assistance jw Tetality duaing all Stages of the caiminel process ¢ QD Did Counsel's failure to object o@ challenge the states indictment on plen ngeeements at “Any” stoge dueing the Ceimianal peocess cause the defeadant Ham; considening that they all contained oa facuelly insufticvent deadly Wwenpon Findlinng on thein face ? . (3) Aec challeages te the validity of @ caitical clenevt of aw indictment “oly “to be anised by defendants coumsel”if the defendant weee +0 Proceed to taial 7 Gd) Did couwsels friluce to advise npplicavl of Yhe basic elements of peood dhe ore LAs reyes prove to sustain the inclusion of an abfiemet ve Gadly weapon Tivding, Cause te defendant peejud and h Resulhie i defendant's guilty plen’s beiny iWveluntoutly induced 2 meee (5) Did couvsel’s fyiluee to develope and peesent any foam of defense on the defendants behalf aendern ber assishvce iWettectue ot all shages of dhe caimivel PRocedS , es pecially dueing he ples Peoceedings 7 Co) Did teivl comvsel’s inadequate peehemanice duainy the Plea Peoceedings Cause noglicant hnan of prejudice 7 , CT) Was counsel's epee sentation deficient pt Plea Proceedings ? 8) Would Ye outcome of the Plea Peaccedinas heen diffeeet but foe counsel's unpaofess ional ERRORS 7 Was defeadant's guilty plea Ls) Knowing ly awd voluvtexily Ewteeed % Cis) tas delewdant davied Dac Paocess aud CHeckve passin of cow “ an ; a ue Challenge the Counsel mislead defendant by shakug that ele “ lead fo tatal ? validly of He Shakes deadly weapon Ende} Ueto