Does the Constitution require that the accused know the elements of a crime in order to validly plead guilty?

QUESTIONS PRESENTED ; Question One This Court found that 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1), 924(a)(2) requires an elevated degree of intent for every non-jurisdictional element of the crime. Rehaif v. . United States, 139 S.Ct. 2191 (2019). On the eve of trial, Mr. Scott pleaded guilty, if he had known the true nature of the § 922(g) mens rea, then he would not have pleaded guilty. Does the Constitution require that the accused know the elements of a crime in order to validly plead guilty? Question Two The Constitution requires a court to sentence a person only on reliable information. When determining whether a prior conviction qualifies as a career— offender predicate, the Constitution tolerates an abbreviated fact finding procedure known as the categorical approach. Unlike federal crimes, Florida's . statute does not contain a knowing scienter for the illicit nature of the controlled substances. Is Florida § 893.13 categorically a qualifying predicate under the Sentencing Guidelines? Cf. Shular v. United States, 139 S.Ct. 2723 (2019)(certiorari granted). Question Three The Due Process clause imposes a Sixth Amendment-like guarantee of the effective assistance of counsel throughout the direct appeal stage of the criminal proceedings. The appellate stage continues until the time for : certiorari review expires. See Clay v. United States, 537 U.S. 522 (2003). After — , direct appeal, Mr. Scott instructed appellate counsel to file a petition for certiorari, but counsel failed to submit the petition. Also see Wilkins v. United States, 441 U.S. 468 (1979). -i Does appellate counsel's failure to file a petition for certiorari constitute per se ineffective assistance of counsel? What remedy is available for petitioner when court-appointed ©. “. attorney failed to fibe timely petition for writ of certiorari ; in defiance of the petitioner's written request that same be done? Lo Question Four The United States Supreme Court has stated that there is no absolute right to counsel at a parole hearing; however, due process may require that an attorney be appointed in a particular case. See Gagnon, 411 U.S. at 787-91. Under Florida Law, however, defendants are granted the right to counsel in parole revocation “ : proceedings. See State v. Hicks, 487 So.2d 22 (Fla. 1985). : Is it a due process right to have counsel present at a parole revocation hearing? Question Five Did the Eleventh Circuit in Smith erroneously conclude that "[n]lo element : of mens rea with respect to the illicit nature of the controlled substance" is impiiea by the definition of "controlled substance offense" under §4B1.2(b) of the Guidelines, so that a conviction under Florida's non-generic, strict liability (PWID) statute may properly be counted as a predicate for imposition of the harsh CO enhancement? ‘ Question Six Did the United States Sentencing Commission exceed its statutory authority under 28 U.S.C. §994(a) when it defined "controlled substance offense" under §4B1.2(b) of the United States Sentencing Guidelines to include offenses lacking a mens rea element? -ii