Whether the 'reasonableness' standard for assessing deficient performance of defense counsel under Strickland-v-Washington,-Hill-v-Lockhart permits a categorical exception immunizing unreasonable advice regarding the likely sentence to be imposed following a guilty plea

QUESTIONS PRESENTED FOR REVIEW 1. Whether the “reasonableness” standard for assessing deficient performance of defense counsel under Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984), and Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52 (1985), permits a categorical exception immunizing unreasonable advice regarding the likely sentence to be imposed following a guilty plea. 2. Whether the reasonableness inquiry for assessing deficient performance of counsel under Strickland and Smith v. Robbins, 528 U.S. 259 (2000), permits application of a standard limiting ineffective assistance of counsel on direct appeal exclusively to circumstances in which counsel’s deficient/ unreasonable performance consists of omitting or overlooking an issue that is “clearly stronger” than those counsel raised on the direct appeal. li PARTIES IN COURT BELOW Other than the present Petitioner and Respondent, the only other parties in the courts below were the State of Wisconsin (also represented by the Wisconsin Department of Justice) as real party in interest for the Respondent, and Warden William J. Pollard, who was replaced as nominal Respondent by Warden Winkleski.