Did the trial court deny the petitioner due process and equal protection rights by disregarding the plea agreement and imposing a mandatory minimum sentence?

No question identified. : , QUESTION (S) PRESENTED I. THE TRIAL COURT DENIED PETITIONER DUE PROCESS AND EQUAL PROTECTION OF THE LAW RIGHTS WHEN THE TRIAL COURT HAVING FULL KNOWLEDGE THAT PETITIONER PLED GUILTY AS A RESULT OF A PLEA BARGAIN AGREEMENT WHICH AS PART OF THE PLEA . BARGAIN THAT THERE WOULD BE NO MANDATORY MINIMUM IN SENTENCING PETITIONER AS PETITIONER'S SENTENCE WOULD BE CONSTRUCTED FROM THE SENTENCING GUIDELINES WHEN THE TRIAL COURT ELECTED TO DISREGARD THE PLEA AGREEMENT AND SENTENCE THE PETITIONER TO A MANDATORY MINIMUM TERM OF TWENTY-FIVE (25) YEARS INCARCERATION, THEREBY IN BREACH OF THE PLEA AGREEMENT . It. TRIAL COUNSEL FAILED TO OBJECT TO THE TRIAL COURT BREACHING THE PLEA AGREEMENT DURING THE SENTENCING OF PETITIONER WHICH DENIED PETITIONER THE EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL. III. APPELLATE COUNSEL FAILED TO RAISE THE ABOVE TWO (2) APPEAL, THEREBY DENYING THE PETITIONER THE EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF APPELLATE COUNSEL. [AY RECEIVED JUL 8 2020 OFFICE SUPREME COUR + {X] All parties appear in the caption of the case on the cover. page. Zimmer v. Kowalski No. 1;19-cv-12462 United States District Court for Eastern District of Michigan judgment entered October 25, 2019. Zimmer v. Kowalski, No. 19-2265 United States Court of Appeal for the Sixth Circuit judgment entered April 01, 2020. ; : fiv]