Whether the state court denied due process by failing to appoint conflict counsel when post-conviction counsel undermined petitioner's claims, and whether the state court erred in finding that a white petitioner cannot qualify for relief under Batson v. Kentucky

QUESTION PRESENTED FOR REVIEW . In this Florida case, the States.case is based largely on the fraudulent testimony . of jailhouse informant Anthony Smith, who concealed his true motives for testifying in petitioner’s trials and had sent letters to the State subsequent to petitioner’s last trial stating that: “he may have concocted his testimony against Petitioner after getting some facts of the case after watching America’s Most Wanted and if the State doesn’t help him with parole, he will disclose such.” The circuit court and Florida Supreme Court denied Petitioner relief after a (partial) evidentiary hearing at which petitioners trial counsel testified that he didn’t receive evidence from the State that Anthony Smith was threatened and coerced into testifying against Petitioner in his last three trials, and was seeking additional deals with the State. That additional new evidence was revealed where Smith had sent letters to the State after Petitioner's last evidentiary hearing stating that, if the State didn’t help with parole he may disclose that he got facts from America’s Most Wanted and not Petitioner. ; That additional new evidence also revealed that Petitioner is actually innocent of the crime, and Walter Holton is the true perpetrator of the crime. James Dixon provided an affidavit stating Holton committed the murder and not Petitioner. Petitioner was denied an evidentiary hearing and his new evidence claim of : actual innocence where, James Dixon provided an affidavit stating that Walter Holton was the true perpetrator of the crime and not Petitioner. That the victim [or] her friends owed money for drugs and that’s why she was killed. ii Evidence not heard by any jury in Petitioner's case was, that Holton’s car was seen next to victims home on night of murder, Holton had jewelry belonging to victim and, had previously told police that, “it was dark around victims home and he thought it would be easy to break into.” Facts never disclosed to any jury in Petitioner's case because ZERO (0) defense witnessed were presented at trial to defend Petitioner. Petitioner was denied fundamentally fair post conviction proceedings where counsel conspired with the State of Florida to undermine Petitioners claims. The trial court was troubled by counsel’s conduct. However, took no action to remove vounsel and instead turned a “blind eye” to counsel’s conduct. Once Petitioner complained to , Florida Supreme Court that court also took no action and ignored the trial court’s statements that “It was troubled.” The state courts turning a blind eye deprived Petitioner due process violating the 6" and 14" Amendment to the United States Constitution. This Court should be compelled to correct this miscarriage of justice. To force Petitioner to languish under a wrongful conviction even longer subjecting him to cruel and unusual punishment violating the 6" and 14" Amendment of the United States Constitution. iti The Questions Presented Are: ; i. THE COURT SHOULD GRANT THE WRIT TO CORRECT AN INJUSTICE IN STATE COURT WHERE POST-CONVICTION COUNSEL UNDERMINED CLAIMS, ABUSED THE PROCESS, WASTED JUDICIAL RESOURCES, AND THE COURT FAILED TO APPOINT CONFLICT COUNSEL DENYING DUE PROCESS, WHERE EVIDENCE OF A CONSPIRACY BETWEEN THE STATE AND COUNSEL EXISTED VIOLATING HOLLAND V. FLORIDA, 560 U.S. 631, 652 (2010); MARTEL V. CLAIR, 132 S.CT. 1276 (2012); MARTINEZ V. RYAN, 132 S.CT. 1309, (2012) ll. THE COURT SHOULD GRANT THE WRIT TO CORRECT FLORIDA COURT’S EGREGIOUS FINDING THAT: “AS A (WHITE MAN) PETITIONER CANNOT QUALIFY FOR RELIEF UNDER BATSON V. KENTUCKY, 476 U.S. 79 (1986) VIOLATING WELL DUE PROCESS AND EQUAL PROTECTION ON WELL ESTABLISHED FEDERAL LAW POWERS V. OHIO 499 U.S. 400, 113 L.ED. 411; 111 S.CT. 1364 (1991) 6" AND 14 AMEND. TO THE U.S. CONST. Ill. WHETHER FLORIDA COURTS DENIED DUE PROCESS WHEN EGREGIOUSLY DENYING NEW EVIDENCE CLAIMS OF ACTUAL INNOCENCE FORCING PETITIONER TO LANGUISH UNDER WRONGFUL CONVICTION, AND FAILING TO FIND PETITIONER’S T