Whether New York State residents are always actually innocent of felony and attempted felony criminal possession of a weapon offenses if they possess a loaded firearm within their home

QUESTION(S) PRESENTED | . 1. Whether New York State residents are always actually innocent of felony and attempted felony cximinal possession of a weapon offenses if they possess a loaded firearm within their hme amd had no 2. Whether petitioner is actully innocent of a felony or attempted felony criminal possession of a | weapon offense under legal. exeptions/defenses within New York Lav. | 3. Whether a defendant may make a freestanding claim of actual innocence under the rare cocasion that | he discovers that he is actually innocent of an offense on the laws of the state. . 4. Whether Nay York State's hame or place of business exception for criminal possession of a weapon | offenses applies anytime possession of a firearm, loaded or not, actully occurs in the home or place of business regardless of vhether the exception is contained within a separate subdivision of the same State, , | 5. then Nav York legislature has proscribed a mistemeanor offense for a defendant who has possessed a i ; loaded firearm in his hore vho also had-no previous convictions, may the State's prosecutors apply the Presumption of unlawful intent under’ Naw York Penal Law 265.15(4) in order to raise that misdemeanor up to a felony or sustain a felony when only a misdemeanor occurred? ; 6. Does Naw York's Penal Law 265.15(4) override and circumvent New York's hare or place of business and no previous conviction exemptions for criminal possession of a weapon offenses? 7. Whether it is legally impossible to camit attanpted criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree in New York State when the. offense is based solely on the Penal Law 265.15(4) presumption. : "8. Whether a trial/sentencine court Jacks authority and jurisdiction over a criminal matter in New York — | State vihen an indictment alleging criminal possession of a weapon fails to specifically articulate that the possession occurred outside of the have or place of business. 9. Whether an attomey's recognition of, and failure to challenge, the application of New York Penal : Law 265.15(4) constitutes ineffective assistance of camsel when that statute is being relied upon by a 10. Whether petitioner's consel revered completely deficient assistance of comsel. , 1. Whether a defendant is entitled to the appeal that was lost altogether no matter how mh time has —"alipsad since ‘Sentencing vhen both the sentencing court and camsel failed to infoon deferdant of aright aa to appeal in addition to consel's failure to file a notice of appeal. ; . 12. Whether weit of error coram nobis is available no miter the legth of time elapsed sire imposition of judgment when cansel fails to file a notice of appeal. and both counsel. and the sentencing © court failed to inform defetant of a right to appeal. 13. Does Roe v. Flones-Ortega,528 U.S. 470(2000) extend or apply to dual deficiency instances when both , consel fails to file a notice of appeal and both the sentercing court and comsel fail to inform a ' defendant of the right to appeal? 14. Whether a deferdnt my file a writ of error coram mobis as soon as discovering the facts that entitle him to coram nobis relief no matter how much time has elapsed sirce the discovery of those facts. . 15. Whether the hanm and prejutice as a result of both a sentencing court and attomey's failure to | inform a defendant of the right ‘to appeal. must be imputed to the State. . 16. Whether a State's refusal to grant coran nobis relief to a defendant who bas provided at least prima facie proof of immocerce but lost an appellate proceeding altogether as a result of his counsel's failure. to file a notice of appeal and both counsel as well as the sentencing court's failure to inform him of the right to appeal always results in a fundamental miscarriage of justice. : ; 17. When the government claims that it notified a defendant that no notice of appeal was filed, does the burden ly with the goverment in proving that it did or with the defendant in proving that the governme