Why did the First District Court of Appeals, State of Florida, not rule fairly on the merits of the issues in the Petitioner's Direct Appeal regarding violations of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution, and Article 1, Section 9, 21 and 23 of the Florida Constitution?

QUESTION(S) PRESENTED 1). why didn*+ the First District Court oF APPeals, State oF Florida, rule fairly im the Petitioner's Direct APPeal on the merits of the issues in the Case in reference +o the, Fifth ond Fourteenth Amendments of the United States ConSt tutional . vislatvons,ond Article 1, Section ey 21 and 4.) of the Florida ConS+ tutional violations e 2). why didn't the Petitronems APPeallant Counsel, Cite the Federal Rules OF Evidence, Federal Rules oF Competencyy Florida Rutes oF Evidence,and Fla. R. Crim. P. 3-2i., Competency, ; and Flas Stat. 8 9N6.12., Mental Competency to'Proceed, tn the Petitioner's APPellont+ Initial Brief, oR Reply Brief ° ; 3). why didn't the Petitioner's APPellant Counsel file a motion for Rehearing 4.330 oR Rehearing en banc 9.331. when the Petitioner aSxed her to file for Rehearing * YD. why didn't the tral Court hold a Competency — hearing Sua Sponte for Petitoner. 5). why didnt +he Petitioner's Court appointed Mental Health Expert, Dr. Harry Krop, ofber performijag the mental evaluation; More o written finding of the Peh toners Mente! Conditrons e ; 6). why did the Petitioner's trial CounSel Sete that, he had rece:ved the Petitioner's Mental Health Report vio emeal that Some date. from the Mental Health Expert, Dr. Harry Krops and that he needed add tonal krme > to review the via email report, and then turn right around and , State, but we won + be pur Suing that gonymore based on the beport that Dve gos ! 7). How Can the Petstoner's trial Counsel Say that, we wont be Pursu ing thet anymone based on the report} dhet Dye gat, if he needed additonal time to review the report wa email? Doesr*t+ that Statement ina whole Sounds 8). How Come the Petitioner's +ynial Counsel, never did produce the via email Mental Health Report from Dr. Harry Krops tothe trial Court's as_prosfof a written finding of the Petitionems mental Condition 9). Did the trial Counsel fabricate o Story, about receiving the via ema:) Menta} Health BR eport From Dre. Harry — Krap, on +hat Same date ! 40). Even afte the gcont of a one month Continuance by the ria) Judge, how Come the trial Counse) Could not peoduce the via €ma:! mental Health Repoyt from pr. Harry rep, to the trial Courts? : 141), Does the via ema) Mental Health Report. From, Dr. Harry Krop, even exist at all ° 12). Why did the trral Counsel Cite, Fla. Re Crim. £.3.220., Cost off diSCovery exSpenSe, when he orally request for on appomtment of a Mental Heclth Exper+ to evaluate the Petitioner ° C . ext Paoe> 43), why didv’+ the tral Counsel Cite, Fla: RCrim, ; P_3.21o-, 3.21) and 3.212,, AN rules governing Mental Competency +o proceed e ; 14). why didn’t the trial Counsel maxe any odections, in the Course of the Petitoner's three day trial, with all the harmfu) and fundamental errors made during the Course Of trial, to other 1ssues, and issues 2) DP) TEE, ond Ly, that +he APPellant Counsel rearsed in the Petitioner's Inbal Brief ° oe 3