Does Indiana have an obligation to equally apply the federal constitution in the same factual scenario?

QUESTIONS PRESENTED J. Stokes and his codefendants were charged with multifarious felonies. On appeal, Stokes’ codefendant had the most serious charge dismissed for insufficient evidence after Stokes’ conviction was affirmed. Stokes, who exhibited lesser culpability than his codefendant sought Post-Conviction Relief, asking the Court, to reconsider the insufficiency of the evidence argument in light of the opinion in his codefendant’s case. Does Indiana have an obligation to equally apply the federal constitution in the same factual scenario? II. Stokes’ appellate counsel failed to recognize the insufficiency of the evidence for the Class A felony robbery and conceded that sufficient evidence existed in her brief. Was appellate counsel’s performance constitutionally deficient in violation of Evitts v. Lucy and Strickland v. Washington and their progeny? III. Stokes’ attorney stipulated that a witness would have testified contrary : to his statement to the police, and did not attempt to introduce the witnesses’ original statements. This stipulation virtually guaranteed Stokes’ conviction. Was counsel’s performance constitutionally deficient under Strickland and its progeny? ii «G ,