Whether the Indiana Supreme Court/Court of Appeals has entered a decision in conflict with other decisions previously made in the United States Supreme Court

QUESTION(S) PRESENTED (Supreme Court Rule 10 et seq.) D Whether or not the Indiana Supreme Court/Court of Appeals has entered a decision in conflict with other decision(s) previously made in the United States Supreme Court on important matter regarding violation(s) of the 4th, 5th, 6th and 14% amendment(s) of the United States Constitution [and] has decided an , important federal question in a way that conflicts with a decision by a State Court of last resort (i.e. the Indiana State Supreme Court) and has so far departed from the accepted and usual course of judicial proceedings and has sanctioned such a departure by the lower court(s) in this matter in a way that conflicts with relevant decisions of this United States Supreme Court as to call for an exercise of this Court’s supervisory power and Judicial Review. 2) Whether or not the Petitioner was seized illegally and held in violation of the’ 4th amendment to the United States Constitution and the denial of a fair and impartial trial by jury in violation of the 5th, 6t and 14th amendment(s) to the United States Constitution, by the admission of evidence that should have been subject to the ‘exclusionary rule’ in relation to claim(s) made in any and all the following Cause Number(s); STATE OF INDIANA (Plaintiff) v. ROBERT H. SMITH (Defendant) Wabash County, Indiana Trial Cause: 85C01-1608-F4-925; and ROBERT H. SMITH v. STATE OF INDIANA Indiana Court of Appeals/Supreme Court; 85A05-1712-CR-2908; (Specifically that the Petitioner Robert H. Smith on direct review suffered undue and unfair prejudice when appellate counsel failed to raise the issue(s) and to : “ee actively challenge the admission of evidence that should have been subject to the ‘exclusionary rule’, due to the ineffective assistance of any and all counsel(s) conducting the Petitioner Robert H. Smith’s trial and direct appeal, in violation of the 5th, 6th and 14th amendment(s) to the United States Constitution. (See) Strickland v. Washington, 466 US 668, 104 S.Ct. 2052 (1984). 3) Whether or not the Petitioner Robert H. Smith was unduly prejudiced when the Wabash County Circuit Court #1 by the improper admission of extrinsic evidence relating to prior bad acts, as well as his trial counsel's failure(s) to compel a complaining adverse witness (Name: Amanda Snow) for the purposes of to have : the ability to impeach an adverse witness’s prior inconsistent statement(s) under Indiana Rule of Evidence 613. That the trial court erroneously allowed a witness named John Gillam to supplant testimony for a complaining witness (Name: Amanda Snow) in violation of the ‘Hearsay Rule. (See) Indiana Rule of Evidence 801 et seq. 4) That although “[sltate courts are the principal forum for asserting constitutional challenges to state convictions.” (Referencing) Harrington v. Richter, 562 US 86 @ 103 (2011). That [it is] no longer to be true in relation to the State of Indiana for at least some ‘Strickland’ claim(s). (Referencing) Strickland v. Washington, 466 US 668, 104 S.Ct. 2052 (1984) and the recent ruling made in Brown v. Brown, 847 F.3d 502 (7* Cir. 2017) !, the ruling incorporates a dissenting opinion by the United States Court of Appeals 7h Circuit Judge Diane Sykes * Application was made for Certiorari under No: S.Ct 17-887 and denied subsequently by (S.C.O.T.U.S.) April 16, 2018. 4 stating; that it [shall make] the federal courts, [and] not state courts the primary . forum for more constitutional challenges to state convictions, and that if the state court(s) deny [a] petitioner’s application for review (done in good faith) then the federal venue shall be appropriate for the attainment of any and all remedy to United States constitutional violations, based on the equitable doctrine of ‘Stare Decisis. 5) That any and all trial and/or appellate counsel(s) failure(s) to preserve legitimate ‘free-standing’ claim(s) during trial and direct review should not be attributable to the Petitioner ROBERT H. SMITH where it shows a cl