Whether a Petitioner who is serving a life sentence without the possibility of parole is denied his constitutional rights

QUESTIONS PRESENTED FOR REVIEW Whether a Petitioner who is serving a life sentence without the possibility of parole is denied his constitutional rights do to trial court err by: OA, admitting photographs of the victim’s body because all were irrelevant and unduly prejudicial B. admitting evidence of the deceased’s petition domestic violence injunction and documentation pertaining to her divorce proceeding, as such evidence was impermissibly used to prove Petitioner’s motive and State of mind Whether a Petitioner who is serving a life sentence without the possibility of parole is denied his constitutional rights to counsel where counsel's representation fell outside that range of reasonably professional assistance for: C. failure to challenge perspective juror that was hard of hearing, which was detrimental to Petitioner's trial. D. failure to opening the door, which allowed the State to introduce prejudicial and otherwise inadmissible hearsay, which was detrimental] to Petitioner’s trial. E, failure to cross examining State witness, which was prejudicial to Petitioner’s trial. F. failure to request a curative instruction after trial court agreed a proper predict was not laid for the introduction of State’s evidence and State witness’s testimony. G. failure to properly question witness as to the shovel that was allegedly used in burring the victim. H. misadvising Petitioner not to testify in support of his defense. I. failure to object to prosecutor remarks on Petitioner’s right to remain silent. ii J. failure to object to prosecutor remarks on facts not in evidence. K. failure to object to the illegal prejudicial jury instructions on voluntary manslaughter where Petitioner was convicted of second degree murder. L. failure to call witnesses that were available during trial. M. failure to present available evidence of phone records from : Petitioner's cell phone and pictures from Petitioner’s computer, which supported Petitioner’s defense and proved his innocence. Whether it’s proper to deny a claim without holding an evidentiary when the record clearly does not refute the claim? iii | 7 | | INTERESTED PARTIES ! There are no interested