Whether a petitioner deserves encouragement to proceed further when trial counsel instructs him to reject a favorable plea offer at trial colloquy through erroneous legal advice

QUESTION(S) PRESENTED QUESTION. 15 & CDA MANAAYED IE A PETITIONER DEMONSTRATES THE STATE ARRIVED AT A DECISION CAVTRARN TO AND A UNREASDNABLE APPLICATION BF STRICALANO AND LAELER BY ISOLATING A SNIPPET OF A TRIAL CeLL OAUY, ALONE,IN ASGESSING PRETUOICE AGAINST ww? A\ LE SO, OES PETITIONER QESERUE ENCOURAGEMENT 16 PROCEED FURTHER WHEN TRIAL COUNSEL INSTRUCTS HIM TO RETECT A FAVBAABLE PLEA OFFER AT TRIAL COLL OQUY THRONE ERRONEBUS LEGAL AAVICE? QUESTIONZ: ARE STATE'S ENTITLED To REOPA DEFERENCE BN LONTRAGA RDUERTEO CREMIGILITY DETERMINATIONS IN UNRERSON GLY APPLYING <TRICKLAND ANDO FRYE, \N APTING TD RELIEVE 4 ATTORNEY'S DEF IARVIT SUER INMOTE’S AFFIBAVITS, ON A CALO RELORO AND WITHBUT EVER ABSERVING REMEANDR AF WITNESSES? A) LF Nov, O16 TRENYENWH MEET COA STANDARDS? AVESTION3. COULD JURIST BF REKSBN DEBATE WHETHER TIBENVENINA'S US, CONST. AMEND. UU RIGHTS WERE UIOLATED 61 A MULT LOLA CIBUS CQOUALE-OLPPR IAG / DEFECTIVE INDICTMENT ANO suRd _ CHARGES) WHETHER THE UIBLATIONS OEMIEA HM & FAIA TRIAL THROUGHOUT THE EwTiIRE TRIAL BECAUSE AF UNQUE PRETUOICE? QuEesTioW 4: WHEN @ U.S. CONST. AMEND. UU UiOLIATION LS APPARENT BN THE CALE AE THE INDICTMENT ANA XURN CHARGES « COULD JURIST OF RBASSA DEBATE BR ALREE GoUNsSEL RENAERED CIAC) \N FAILING To BATECT and WHETHER SUCH INECFFECTWENESS PREMUO ICED ; THE OFFENSE? AUESTIONS: COULA SLLRIST OF REASBN DEGATE WHETHER THE § 2107 STATUTE (5 UN CONSTITUTIONAL, FACI ALLY ANAIDR AS APPLIED AS VIOLATIVE GF THE U.S. CBAST. ANEANR. Vi XU; WHETHER THE PROCENULAL AEFAULTCAUSE fA CRETUALE RULINGS WERE STIS FIED BY LOUASEL'S FAILURE Yd BHAECT ON THESE GROUNDS WERE CORRECT? cy