DID DANNOLFO'S PROTESTATION OF INNOCENCE FORECLOSE HIS ABILITY OF PROVING STRICKLAND PREJUDICE UNDER LAFLER V. COOPER, OR DID THE COURTS FAIL TO GIVE MEANING TO NORTH CAROLINA V ALFORD'S HOLDING THAT OTHER REASONS WOULD HAVE INDUCED DANNOLFO TO PLEAD, SUCH AS A CORRECT EVIDENTIARY PICTURE OF THE STATE'S CASE FROM COMPETENT COUNSEL?

DOES DANNOLFO'S CASE, WHICH ALLIGNS WITH NUMEROUS CIRCUIT COURT DECISIONS, CONFLICT WITH NORTH CAROLINA V. ALFORD IN CONJUNCTION WITH STRICKLAND V. WASHINGTON AND LAFLER V. COOPER, WHERE HE PROTESTED HIS INNOCENCE, INVOLUNTARILY REJECTED A PLEA OFFER, AND LATER CLAIMED ACCEPTANCE OF THE LOST PLEA OFFER ABSENT COUNSEL'S MISAD VICE?

Did Dannolfo's protestation of innocence foreclose his ability of proving Strickland prejudice under Lafler v. Cooper, or did the courts fail to give meaning to North Carolina v. Alford's holding that other reasons would have induced Dannolfo to plead, such as a correct evidentiary picture of the State's case from competent counsel?