Did the Arizona courts err in failing to apply the proper federal standard of review for claims of ineffective assistance of counsel, involuntary plea, and denial of evidentiary hearing?

QUESTIONS PRESENTED This Court has jurisdiction to determine federal constitutional issues that have been incorrectly decided by State courts of last resort. Mr. Ross raised three constitutional issues in Post-Conviction Relief proceedings, yet the Arizona courts failed to even consider or note the appropriate constitutional standard of review for two of the issues and the third was actually considered in the context of an actual innocence claim requiring Mr. Ross to prove his innocence when this Court’s precedence clearly establishes no such burden should be placed on the Petitioner. The three issues are interrelated and all have clearly established United States Supreme Court authority that specifically addresses the appropriate standard of review. 1. Did the Arizona courts err when they failed to recognize or apply the proper federal standard of review per United States Supreme Court precedence to a question of denial of effective assistance of counsel resulting in the unconstitutional acceptance of a plea in a criminal proceeding? 2. Did the Arizona courts err when they failed to apply the proper federal standard of review per United States Supreme Court precedence to a question of whether a plea was knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily entered where the defendant could not have been informed of critically important video evidence as his attorney did not have the material at the time of the plea? li QUESTIONS PRESENTED Continued 8. Did the Arizona courts err when they failed to recognize or apply the proper federal standard of review per United States Supreme Court precedence to a question of whether to grant an evidentiary hearing regarding colorable claims for relief in Post-Conviction Relief?