Did the Eleventh Circuit err in deferring to the Superior Court's finding that Ms. Smith was not prejudiced by her appellate counsel's failure to raise on appeal that her trial counsel was deficient for not moving to suppress the phone records presented as evidence against her?

No question identified. : | QUESTIONIS) PRESENTED 1) Ms. Smith alleged that her appellete course! was ineHectue — Tor Failing 40 raise: on appeal that hertrial counsel wos deficient For not moving to suppress the phones records presested as ewvidence cpt her. (11s, Smith wes canvicded in lorge part, upen , COLT Cellular gite lecattion information), as the Supremes © Cart of Geagia, placid a great deal oF empheis on shes importanes. of these cell phen records, “Ln Finding no Eleventh Gireuttt relied on appellate counsel Jonclhan Majeske, Gwar +estimeny oF his harmful opinion “shett there woos | No Viable besis to challeme trial counsel's effectiveness, CHT. 44-45) ara on +o the September 19,2018, eset hworitg Did the Eleventh Gireust err in deferring 4 se Superior Gout Finding tak Me, Smith was net preiodicied by her appellate Couns Failure: do raise on appeal ttt her tial Courel wos deficient for not moving t suppress the. phone» records presinted as evidence, against her? 2)Ms, Smith Prepored and submrtted oF briek by the reauiveed deadliny to substantiaie the grounds that she, raised at hor evidentiary hearing, conducted oy September IS, Zo. The petit) one's Former counsel Retry Zell submitted Q® proposed order arguieg ony one of the Treva, oyrourds Thad he, petitioner raised. The propeaed order was submitted over seven months after the pro seu brick woos Submitted, Ms. Smith recewed her docket history ver Fying thet the, brie was recetud in av FHinely Manner However, the Cows never ruled of the brie thar was originally out . Did the Superior Court t Habersham County er in Failing fo rule on all the grounds heck tne. Petitions raved on her Wert of Habeas petition”