Did the District Court err in deferring to the lower court's finding, that Mr. Harris was not prejudice during his guilty plea sentencing hearing

Questions Presented . Mr. Harris alleges an obvious conflict between the criminal 16-93-609(b), and the habitual offender statute 5-4-501(d)(2), that prohibits the two from being read in a harmonious , way. A reasoned de novo review of the statutes is warranted by this Court. In finding no prejudice as required by law. This direct conflict shows that the two statutes cannot be read harmoniously. Because the sentence imposed by 16-93-609(b) is prohibited by the plain meaning of the later Ark. Code Ann. 5-4-501(d)(2), the earlier contradictory statute should be deemed superceded. In finding no prejudice the Federal District Court significantly misstated the version of the facts. This case thus presents the following question: | Did the District Court err in deferring to the lower court’s finding, that Mr. Harris was not 4 prejudice during his guilty plea sentencing hearing. i .