Whether the Petitioner's trial attorney was ineffective

QUESTIONS PRESENTED FOR REVIEW. _ I Whether the Petitioner’s trial attorney was ineffective for failing to conduct a reasonable investigation into a potential defense witness, which led to the failure to present the testimony of Petitioner’s former trial attorney who would have testified that the victim, Annmarie Rowe, told former trial attorney that Petitioner lived with the victim and had keys to her house on the night of the offense, which would have defeated the claim that Petitioner entered the house “of another”a required element of the offense of Home Invasion thereby violating the Sixth and Fourteenth . Amendment of the United States Constitution. . . , : Il : Whether the Prosecution met its burden of proving Petitioner guilty beyond a reasonable doubt as . to each and every element of Home Invasion and Aggravated Unlawful Use of a Weapon. Ill Whether this Court should address a fundamental question left open by the [linois Supreme Court’s decision in People v. Simpson, 2015 IL 116512, { 31, as to whether the recipient of a prior inconsistent statement must also have personal knowledge of the event or condition described in the statement for it to be admissible under 725 ILCS 5/115-10.1. ae Ww hether the Illinois Appellate Court iésolved ‘this case based on an argument never made by, the: , —_ State and misconstrued both’ the record and the law. to reach that resolution: os oo