whether Petitioner was denied his Sixth Amendment right to effective assistance of counsel and Fourteenth Amendment Due Process right to a fair trial

QUESTION(S) PRESENTED . (whether Btitioner was denied his Sixth Amendment right to effective assistance off counsel and Fourteenth Amendment Due Process right to a faiv trial by beth Trial Counselé fatlure. to object to misleading and prejudicial statements and Expert Opinions ; during the States Counsherb Residue expert witness testimony, while giving his Opinion and Conclusion +o the Jury, Wo conf lict and th contrast to the actual Forensic Evidence results? , (whether Petitioner was denied his Sixth Amendment right to effective assistance of counsel) at the PCR stage, by pcR Counsel, a) failing to file a proper Rule 54(e)Motion to Alter or Amend the Judgment; pursuant to Rule $1(e),SCREP, to properly preserve for Appellate review) the Britloners issues /grounds that were properly raised at the PCR hearty, but net ruled upon by the PCR Court, band for filing an improper 57(@) Motion to Reconsider, which did nob preserver any of the fetitioners claims /issues /avguments Phat weve properly raised, but not ruled upon; which caused Petitioners claims to be procedurally barred °° (Whether Beitioner was denied hits Sitth Amendment right to effective assistance of POR Appellate Counsel, a)uhen POR Appellate Counsel refused to, and foiled to Taise any ot fettthoners Propet ly pesetved non-€rvoleus meritorious claims te the States Highest Court ( South , Caroling Supteme Court) tor appellate review, b.Jand for raising « claim/issye to the Sauth Carelina Supreme Court, which was created by PCR Appellate Counsel and raised or the : First time, when i+ was fatsed to the South Carolina Supreme Court, and because It was nota claim that fatitioner had vaised at his FER hearing, (buck twas the onl claim PER Appellate Counse| raised +o the States Highest Court). which was ruled on and denied by the South Caroling Supreme Court, when the States Highest Court did not have jurisdictton to vale on issue thet was not raised at fetitioners FOR hearing ; bit it did anyway! . (9) id the PCR judge ere inn efusing to find trial counsel ineffective in failing te cross~ examine the State's Sole EyewMtness aboud the fact that he inithally did net identity Pettibone ot his codefondomt by name despite knowtng beth of themyand described the suspects involved in the shorting as one blacle male with dreadlacks and one black male with a close cut halreuct and a striped shirt diving a White SUV, possibly a Missan with a black stripe down the Side, descript fons thab matched two other Ind