Whether petitioner was denied his Sixth Amendment right to effective assistance of counsel at trial

QUESTIONS PRESENTED FOR REVIEW I. Petitioner was denied his Sixth Amendment Right to the effective assistance of counsel at trial due to counsel's failure to request a self-defense instruction although the evidence supported it and was available under Michigan law. II. The Court of Appeals committed plain error, contrary to Bunkley v _. . Florida, 538, US 835, 123 S. Ct 2020 (2002) because it denied Petitioner the benefit of People v Triplett, 499 Mich 52 878; NW2d 811 (2016) which clarified the affirmative defense of self-defense to the crime of CCW while his case was on direct appeal. III. Whether Petitioner denied effective assistance of pre-trial counsel when counsel submitted forged affidavits to the trial court in support of his pretrial motion without investigating them? Iv. Whether Petitioner denied effective assistance of trial counsel for failing to make a mandatory disclosure of a prosecution witnessl!s attorney that had an actual conflict of interest? Vv. Whether Petitioner denied effective assistance of appellate counsel for abandoning an evidentiary hearing on Bahoda's motion for new trial? i STATEMENT UNDER RULE 29.6 Disclosure of Corporation affiliation and Financial interest. Pursuant to Rule 29, Saad A. Bahoda makes the following disclosure: 1. Is said party a subsidiary or affiliate of a publicly owned corporation? No. If the answer is “yes,"' list below the identity of the parent corporation or affiliate and the relationship between it and the named party. 2. Is there a publicly owned corporation, not a party to the case, that has a financial interest in the outcome? No. If the answer is "yes," List below the identity of the corporation and the nature of the financial interest. Z. \vee gsc Propria Persona October 31, 2019 ii TABLE OF CONTENT : Content: — Oo Opinions Below 1 Jurisdiction ; ; 1 Constitutional and Statutory Provision involved 2