Is petitioner (Gibbons) procedurally defaulted on his claim of ineffective assistance of counsel for failure to investigate a mental illness defense?

QUESTIONS PRESENTED | 1. Is petitioner (Gibbons) procedurally defaulted on his claim of ineffective assistance of counsel for failure to investigate a mental illness defense when counsel was notified by client that serious mental illness symptoms were being experienced at the time of the offense? Did the last state court, the Minnesota court of appeals, to render an opinion: a) Plainly state that the court was relying on a state procedural rule, the Knafflabar, to foreclose federal habeas review, (which would procedurally default < petitioner) or, : b) “Actually rely” on a state procedural rule to bar federal review? i. Ifso, which state procedural rule did the opinion rely on to deny | relief of which claims? — Knaffla, Spears, or Opsahi? 2. Did counsel act reasonably in not investigating a mental iliness defense when counsel was notified by client that mental health information, in the form of : Gibbons’ reliance on anti-psychotic medication, existed from the time of the offense for serious mental illnesses? — in a guilty plea context. 3. Was Gibbons prejudiced by counsel’s failure to investigate a mental illness defense when counsel convinced Gibbons to plead guilty? i} : Gibbons