Whether the Florida courts of appeals provide for evidentiary hearings to determine Strickland's mixed question of law and fact

QUESTIONS PRESENTED Petitioner Collier humbly asks this Honorable Court to invoke its judicial discretion and consider the following question: WHETHER THIS COURT SHOULD EXERCISE ITS CERTIORARI JURISDICTION IN ORDER TO REVIEW A CLAIM THAT FLORIDA COURTS OF APPEALS DO NOT PROVIDE FOR EVIDENTIARY HEARINGS IN ORDER TO DETERMINE STRICKLANDS MIXED QUESTION OF LAW AND FACT AS TO WHETHER THE DEFICIENT AND PREJUDICIAL PERFORMANCE OF APPELLATE COUNSELS DECISION TO FOREGO A PROPERLY PRESERVED SUPPRESSION ORDER UNDERMINES THE EXHAUSTION REQUIREMENT OF THE CRIMINAL APPEALS REFORM ACT RESULTING IN THE DENIAL OF PETITIONERS FOURTH, FIFTH, SIXTH AND FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT RIGHTS TO THE CONSTITUTION. IS THE PROCEDURAL BAR UNDER THE AEDPA OF 1996 PROVISIONS CODIFIED AT 28 U.S.C. § 2254 DENYING RELIEF TO STATE PRISONER'S CLAIMS ADJUDICATED } ON THE MERITS APPLICABLE TO THOSE CASES WHICH | FALL WITHIN THE PERIMETERS OF FLORIDA’S ZOPPS V. STATE, 865 SO. 2D 1253 CRITERIA WHEN SEEKING . FEDERAL HABEAS CORPUS RELIEF? WAS THE PETITIONER DEPRIVED A FULL AND FAIR | OPPORTUNITY FOR A REVIEW OF HIS 4TH AMENDMENT VIOLATION CLAIMS HERE IN UNDER THE CLISBY RULE? ABSENT PROBABLE CAUSE, WHERE THE FACTS HEREIN KNOWN TO LAW ENFORCEMENT SUFFICIENT ENOUGH TO JUSTIFY THEIR METHOD OF DETAINING THE PETITIONER AS NOT TO EXCEED THE LIMITS OF AN INVESTIGATORY STOP IN VIOLATION OF HIS 47H AMENDMENT ENTITLEMENTS? ; IS A STATE HABEAS PETITIONER ENTITLED TO RELIEF WHERE HIS DENIAL ON A 47H AMENDMENT VIOLATION WERE THE RESULT OF A DECISION BASED ON AN UNREASONABLE DETERMINATION OF FACTS IN LIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE PRESENTED IN THE STATE COURT PROCEEDINGS? ARE THE FEDERAL COURTS TO WHICH THE APPLICATION IS MADE ON A 4TH AMENDMENT VIOLATION IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE 57H, 6TH, AND 14TH BY A STATE PRISONER NOT OBLIGATED TO AT LEAST HOLD AN EVIDENTIARY HEARING OR TRY THE FACTS ANEW, WHERE THE APPLICANT FOR A WRIT ALLEGES FACTS WHICH WERE NOT CONCLUSIVELY REFUTED BY THE RECORD AND IF PROVEN, WOULD ENTITLE HIM TO RELIEF? | |