Whether the 26(B) application for reopening proceeding was adequate and fundamentally fair

QUESTION(S) PRESENTED : : 1. Whether the 26(B) application for reopening proceeding was adequate and fundamentally fair in order to determine if appellate counsel was deficient and prejudicial to the petitioner. 2. Whether the 26(B) application for reopening demonstrated that there is a genuine issue as to whether the petitioner was deprived of the effective assistance of counsel on appeal. . 3. Whether the petitioner’s showing that appellate counsel’s failure to request and include the transcript of the amendment to indictment presented a genuine issue of ineffective assistance. . 4. Whether appellate counsel was unconstitutionally ineffective in failing to raise as plain error the trial court’s failure to fully and completely give the jury all the relevant instructions as requested and agreed upon, 5. Whether appellate counsel was ineffective for failing to raise as plain error that defense counsel was ineffective for not requesting a limiting instruction to disregard highly inflammatory material. 6. Whether appellate counsel was unconstitutionally ineffective for failing to raise as error defense counsel’s representing conflicting interests when stipulating to an element of the offense charged. 7. Whether counsel on appeal was ineffective for failing to raise as error that the trial court plainly erred by not instructing the jury on the lesser included offense.