Did the trial court err by admitting into evidence the illegally obtained wiretap recordings of the defendant's phone conversations with an undercover agent?

QUESTION(S) PRESENTED A) Did tae Hie Couck lyrrod by Admitting into tridence of The WMegally Obtained Wiretap pool tose reoording of Bae d2lLend@4's ocok Conversabong with re Montgomery County poum (MCP) und€reover Agen L aa . DI \Alas re Widence SUufLI ent 40 Shor that tre delenclant Was THe Soliudos, or Wa he merely a SOUL Who ACHYWRSCed 40 THE Slate agent SolGraron?, Bi Did me au Shy plea Vi0t Aire Vstabliched trot Pag defendant had the reqwigite Understanding of The narmace and elements of the Crime of Colicrabon to Commir Kerct degree mucder? Uy Did We Avice Court erred in Aekermining thiat tae deken dank 's guilty plea was Knowingly and Voluntarily Rarbered wi understanding of par +md nalvire of the Chine 52s and Tar Concsemences of fre Quite pres q SY DIid ML wie Comrt ecced ivi depriving tue deLendand of Wis Congkhimkonok rights 40 all post Convichon NGS Including TAL AGit yo Ble a mahon © rerongi der gn reouest G ACRE gga pandl o¢ Appelt — by] Does WR USL OF SoUUHAKCH ag | Com~mOn [HO Crime Vrolohe To® ST and WM amendment of the United States CUS) Conghimkon 7 | 4) \¢ YAL Cm L 96 GoUatahon gauyad, dik YW occurred of A HR orioe 10 THR mS ChOGE iy TAR Inclidhmtt? QI Did WAR WAM Court erred iy charging fhe Clements OL HAL SoOUELaAon Crying 2 GQ) Was Tre alleged SoVUlahon Crim foo Yaak and IMAL nite 1 Support a Convichon™