Did trial court abuse discretion by considering nolle prossed charge in sentencing, violating 5th and 14th Amendment rights

QUESTION(S) PRESENTED I. DID TRIAL COURT ABUSE ITS DISCRETION BY CONSIDERING A NOLLE PROSSED CHARGE OF FIRST DEGREE MURDER IN SENTENCING PETITIONER TO THE 20-YEAR PLEA CAP, VIOLATING HER FIFTH AND FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT RIGHTS. II]. WAS PLEA NOT KNOWING AND VOLUNTARY MADE BECAUSE IT WAS PREMISED ON MISADVICE OF COUNSEL, VIOLATING HER FIFTH AND FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT RIGHTS. IV. WAS COUNSEL INEFFECTIVE FOR FAILING TO CALL AN ASSISTANT STATE ATTORNEY ON HER BEHALF REGARDING PETITIONER'S COOPERATION AGAINST HER CO-DEFENDANTS IN EXCHANGE FOR A PLEA TO ACCESSORY AFTER THE FACT, VIOLATING HER FIFTH, SIXTH AND FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT RIGHTS. V. DID COUNSEL RENDER INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE FOR FAILING TO INFORM PETITIONER OF CHANGE OF PLEA AGREEMENT, A VIOLATION OF HER FIFTH, SIXTH AND FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT RIGHTS. VI./X. WAS COUNSEL INEFFECTIVE FOR FAILING TO ADVISE PETITIONER TO WITHDRAW PLEA AND FILE A MOTION TO DISQUALIFY JUDGE; AND WAS COUNSEL INEFFECTIVE FOR FAILING TO OBJECT DURING JUDGE'S STATEMENTS WHICH WERE USED TO DETERMINE SENTENCE, VIOLATING HER FIFTH, SIXTH AND FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT RIGHTS. VII. DID COUNSEL'S PERFORMANCE FALL BELOW A REASONABLE OBJECTIVE STANDARD IN ALLOWING PETITIONERTO BUILD A CASE ON HERSELF WITHOUT SECURING A PLEA DEAL, VIOLATING HER FIFTH, SIXTH AND FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT RIGHTS. VIII. WAS COUNSEL INEFFECTIVE FOR FAILING TO OBJECT TO TESTIMONY FROM ANOTHER TRIAL, VIOLATING HER FIFTH, SIXTH AND FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT RIGHTS. IX. WAS COUNSEL INEFFECTIVE FOR FAILING TO PROVIDE THE TRIAL COURT WITH PROPER DOCUMENTATION FOR MITIGATION, VIOLATING HER FIFTH, SIXTH AND FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT RIGHTS. XI. WAS COUNSEL'S ASSISTANCE RENDERED EFFECTIVE FOR LACK OF EXPERIENCE, VIOLATING HER FIFTH, SIXTH AND FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT RIGHTS.