Whether the Indiana courts erred in affirming the post-conviction court's decision despite the State's procedural default

QUESTIONS PRESENTED 1. (Issue added by the State Attorney General on Appeal not heard in postconviction court used to affirm appeal failing to address the claims below). The State in its initial answer to post-conviction relief made a generalized defense of waiver and res judicata, but didn’t argue it during the evidentiary hearing or in its findings of fact and conclusions of law, choosing to argue the issue’s merits; therefore the post-conviction court addressed only the issue’s merits. The State procedurally defaulted waiving this issue, yet the Indiana Appeals Court affirmed in a decision only addressing this issue ignoring the Constitutional Issues denying Petitioner a fair jury trial, the Indiana Southern District and Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals denied to hear Constitutional claims in violation of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. 2. Whether the Indiaia‘Courts erred ruling Appellant was not denied effective assistance of appellate counsel in violation of the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution; Article One, sections Twelve and Thirteen of the Indiana Constitution when appellate counsel raised issues that had no merit failing'to ‘present them well on appeal, and failing to raise significant and obvious issues stronger than the issues raised. : 3. Whether the Indiana Courts erred ruling Appellant was not denied effective assistance of counsel in violation of the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution and Article One, sections Twelve and Thirteen of the Indiana Constitution when Trial counsel failed to object to prosecutorial misconduct duritig‘¢losing arguments and misadvised Appellant concerning an insanity defensé“and in declining a plea agreement offer. ; ii ‘ y : . ;