Whether a plea agreement to return illegally seized property in exchange for a guilty plea, induced by the prosecutor, is breached when the prosecution and police later renege after a defendant is sentenced, refuse to return all of his illegally seized property, and turn over items that never belonged to him to begin with

QUESTION(S) PRESENTED : : | Whether a plea agreement to return illegally seized property in exchange for / a guilty plea, induced by the prosecutor, is breached when the prosecution and police later. renege after a defendant is sentenced, refuse to return all | of his illegally seized property, and turn over items that never belonged to ~ him to begin with.(Page I! -13). ‘2. When a plea agreement induced by the prosecutor is comprised of a | defendant pleading guilty in exchange for the return of property belonging , : i ; to him that has already been ruled illegally seized in violation of the Fourth Amendment and suppressed, is the plea agreement meaningless and illusory?(PagelS -15) : : _3. Is a defendant's right to due process and access to the courts violated ‘ when they are advised by the trial court that they are waiving "a jury['s]" right to appeal, rather than their own, then not allowed to appeal on : grounds of federal retroactive change in law due to that waiver?(Page\6 ; de) | . ; 4. When a new rule and newly recognized right on fourth amendment standing . is pronounced, must the case announcing that new rule and recognized right . ; , be applied retroactively to all cases pending at the time of the . announcement, specifically Carpenter v. U.S.,585 U.S.___(2018)?(Page |b 2!) . 5. Is counsel's assistance deficient when he fails to investigate or acquire : exclupatory evidence as well as the facts and integrity of a prior conviction and also fails to lodge a challenge to it during prdicate felon adjudication proceedings?(Page 22-25) ~ 6. Whether the right to due process is violated when a judge threatens to enhance a defendant's sentence for exercising his right(s).(Page 25) . . 7. Whether federal precedent mandates that a state court proceed to the : “credible and compelling" prong of analysis when a defendant: presents newly ' discovered evidence on a claim of actual innocence.(Page 25-27) : . 8. Whether People v. tiger,32 NY3d 91(2018) unconstitutionally forecloses and undermines federal standards of actual innocence claims on a state ‘level, thus automatically foreclosing and preventing first-instance review . by the state in circumvention of O'Sullivan v. Boerckel,526 U.S. 838(1999). : (Page 27 30.) ° _ 9(a). Whether a state prosecution is barred and a state lacks jurisdiction ’ when accusatory instruments are twice defective. (Page 20 32); 9(b). Whether the complete lack of a court's jurisdiction over a defendant in a criminal case is of a constitutional, rather than merely a jurisdictional, demension.(Page 30-32).