Did S.C. Supreme Court decide on an important federal question in ways conflicting with decision of other state?

questions PRESENTED Did S.C. Supreme Court decide on an important federal question in ways conflicting with decision of other state? Did S.C. Supreme Court and U.S. Court of appeals decided important question of federal law that has not been but should be settled by this court? Did S.C. Supreme Court offend the concept of even handed justice reasoned by the United States Supreme Court by promulgating the admittedly new rule applying to petitioner case? Did S.C. Supreme Court violate Equal Protection on any evidence standard of review utilized by S.C. Court of Appeals and the dissent? : Did S.C. Supreme Court violate petitioner due process, procedural due process by unreasonably deny, equity, fairness, impartiality, and even hand dealing? Did S.C. Supreme Court majority knowing violate petitioner equal protection when dissent noted they were applying a rule different from Talley v. State (2007)? Did S.C. Supreme Court majority violated equal protection by applying new rule to petitioner in noted relief won’t be granted unless he can demonstrate interest of justice but not giving him a chance to only the ones after him having that opportunity? Did S.C. Supreme Court by granting bond under old rule, being same court applying new rule retroactively violating vested rights? Is because of the prescription and prejudice applying a retroactive rule counseling max out to change from 2017 with two year probation to 2023 off probation 2025 violate 8" and 14" amendment? Did S.C. Supreme Court impair obligation of contract by granting bond under traditional rule when new rule did not exist violating U.S. Constitution as well S.C. Ex post Facto Law? Did S.C. Supreme Court error when applying new rule retroactively on collateral review when there past transaction and consideration with petitioner became vested? Did S.C. Supreme Court violate their own as well a U.S. ex post facto law? Should S.C. Supreme Court have addressed retroactive at time of the decision when dissent state since this a new rule where we to adopt it and be applied prospectively? (Talley v. State) (2007) Did S.C. Supreme Court change the detention to the detention itself since they granted bond and applied new law changing the proceeding collateral when they are to be fair and equal under constitution when that decision is why he’s back in custody? Did S.C. Supreme Court rejection of Spann test adoption of Jamison test violates federal law? Did the S.C. Supreme Court new rule determination abuse their discretion process? Is petitioner being back in custody valid since S.C. Supreme Court the same court that granted bond then apply new rule? Did S.C. Supreme Court abuse their discretion, cautioning petitioner no point will be considered which is not set forth in issue on appeal disposed state appeal then adopting new rule? Is Petitioner back in custody because of a violation of his constitution upon past event? Because of the fundamental miscarriage of justice can this court address the voluntariness of plea and all the constitutional error? Is applying this new rule to petitioner constitutionally forbidden since it present legal consequences upon past event granted by S.C. Supreme Court? Did the U.S. Court of Appeals error noting state prisoner has no federal constitutional right to post conviction proceedings?