Did the 4% Dist., Div. 1, Court of Appeal, California, err in its inquiry and application of Boykin-Tahl analysis under its 'totality of circumstances' standard of review in relying on an incomplete and erroneous factual record?

QUESTIONS PRESENTED (1) Did the 4% Dist., Div. 1, Court of Appeal, California, err in its (a) inquiry and (b) application of Boykin / Tahl! analysis under its (c) “totality of circumstances” standard of review in relying on an (d) incomplete and erroneous factual record? in denying Appellant’s appeal of : his timely and diligent Withdraw of Plea (April 23, 2018) efforts prior to Sentencing (June 7, 2018); where, Petitioner states that (e) there is substantially more than a reasonable probability? 1 See Boykin v. Ala. 395 U.S 238, 243 (1969); In re : Tahl, 1 Cal.3d 122, 132 (1969) 2 See e.g., DO74186, Petition for Rehearing, with Attorney John O. Lanahan, commenting, in part, “the [c]ourt overlooked [Petitioner’s] statements in open ; court that contradicted, rather that supplemented, the waiver of rights he had initialed on the change of plea form” (pg. 5-6) and “minute orders and his own statements at the change of plea hearing show that he believed the only way he would be released was if he pleaded guilty,” (d., pg. 6) (