Whether the Maryland appellate courts erred or abused their discretion

QUESTION(S) PRESENTED 1. Whether The Manand Appellate Courts In Concluding Pena Failed To Sustain His Burden Of Proving He Did Not Voluntarily And Knowingly Enter A Guilty Plea With Understanding Of The Crime Dlemenis By Failing To Testify At The Coram Nobis Hearing That Before Pleading Guilty Defense Counsel Had Not Advise Him Of The Nature And Elements Of Crime Ered Or Abused Its Discretion Since Those Conclusions Conflict With This Court's Bradshaw v. Stumpf Cpinion That The Plea Record Suffices? (a) Whether Since This Court In Bradshaw v. Stump? Scaled Back The Presumption Suggested In Henderson v. Morgan, 426 U.S. 637, 96 S.CL 2253, 49 LEd. 108 (1976) Whether Without Defense Counsel Testifying At The Hearing The Maryland Appellate Courts exred Or Abused #s Discretion In Conctuding Base Only On The Coram Nobis Court's Presumptive Knowledge Cf Defense Counse! Reputation Cf Being Mindful Of His Clients Rights That : Pena Pleaded guilty Voluntarily With The Understanding Of The Crime Elements? (b). Whether The Maryland Appellate Courts Ered Or Abused its Discretion in Looking Beyond The Guilty Plea Record To Conclude The Initial Appearance Report Serve As Proof Pena Had Been Advised Or Understood The Elements Of The Crimes Since Those Conclusions Are In Direct Conflict With This Court's Controlling Precedent Decided In Bradshaw v. Stumpf? ii. Whether The Maryland Appellate Courts Erred Or Abused Its Discretion In : Concluding That The Tria! Judge Use Of The 2001 Convictions And Fifteen Year Sentence Invalid Under Bradshaw v. Stumpf As Reasons For imposing A Consecutive Twenty-Five Year Sentence Did Not Constitute Significant Collateral Consequences?