Whether counsel's admitted misadvice regarding Petitioner's designation as a sexual predator and the resulting lifetime supervision amounted to gross misinformation, prejudicing Petitioner's acceptance of a lengthier plea to avoid post-prison supervision

No question identified. : i Question Two plea offers were made available by the State : 1) twenty years prison with a [negotiable] term of probation and sex offender designation; or 2) twenty-five , years prison with no probation and sex offender designation. Contrary to the above offers, a first degree felony conviction to sexual battery in violation of F.S. 794.011(4); requires, mandatory designation as a sexual predator pursuant to FS. 775.21(5)(a)2, at the time of sentencing. Question One: Whether, counsel’s admitted misadvice with respect to | Petitioner's designation, its direct result of a life time | imposition of “specialized supervision by probation officers” | pursuant to Florida Sexual Predator Act, FS. | 775.21(8)(b)2&(e)1, and the designations triggering of the } maximum level of supervision by Fla. Conditional Release FS. 947.1405(c); amounts, to gross misinformation by counsel, considering the prejudicial aspect of losing the lesser more | favorable of the two available plea offers, and acceptance of the | lengthier plea, strongly suggests — the determinative issue — was to avoid all post prison supervision when released from ; prison? Question Two: If so, as case in point, the deliberate exclusion in all below court rulings and reports, of the existence of two available plea offers, whereby, allowing the courts to analyze prejudice using | the Strickland/Hill test, infra; rather than the correct analysis defined in Strickland/Frye and Lafler infra; what remedy does the public have in addressing Due Process violations when | courts, by questionable tactics, refuse to follow Supreme Court | precedent? | : | | ii . Liat of Parties | All parties do not appear in the caption of the case on cover page. A list of all