Was the indictment defective?

QUESTION(S) PRESENTED ; 1. The indictment was defective because it did not adequately inform the petitioner of the state's theory of attempted first degree murder. (Doc. No. | at 5.) 2. The petitioner's jury did not fairly represent the community. (Doc. No. 1 at 6.) 3. The petitioner was unfairly prejudiced by the trial court's evidentiary rulings. (Doc. No. 1 at 8.) : 4. The trial judge engaged in improper communication with the jury. (Doc. No. 1 at 10.) 5. There was insufficient evidence to support the petitioner's conviction. (Doc. No. 1 at 15.) 6. The petitioner's sentence was improperly enhanced and is excessive. (Doc. No. 1 at 17.) 7. The petitioner's right to due process was violated by the cumulative{2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8} effect of various errors of the trial court and trial counsel, and by prosecutorial misconduct. (Doc. No. | at 19.) . ; 8. The petitioner received ineffective assistance of trial counsel, appellate counsel, and post-conviction counsel. (Doc. No. 1 at 21.) 9. The petitioner's multiple indictments and convictions for various theories of murder violated his ri ght: to due process and the prohibition against double jeopardy. (Doc. No. 1 at 23.)