Should the petitioner be held responsible for counsel's error and prevented from presenting newly discovered evidence for review, that very well could exonerate him

QUESTIONS PRESENTED 1. Should the petitioner be held responsible for counsel's error and prevented from presenting newly discovered evidence for review, that very well could exonerate him "from the charges currently in prison over? 2. Has the petitioner's due process Constitutional Rights been violated with the respective State court's denying review. . . After being shown that the Newly Discovered Evidence that could exonerate him, was turned over to the petitioner from F.D.L.E. well after trial and sentencing had been completed and imposed , and was NOT a Brady violation as counsel presented the claim as? 3. When evidence and testimony presented at trial points to the author of the “letter of admissions”, (the newly discovered evidence), over the petitioner as being the perpetrator of the crime the petitioner is currently doing time over. . . . Has a manifest injustice been created by denying the petitioner review of the evidence that shows someone other than the petitioner committed the crime currently in prison over that's been prohibited over hired for pay counsel's error? . _ 4. Should the United States Supreme Court be obligated to invoke their discretionary appellate powers to compel the trial court to allow for presentation the “letter of admissions” presented by the F.D.L-E. To the petitioner? 5. In accordance with the determination of the Florida Department Of Law Enforcement, stating that the authenticity of the “letter of admissions” can be validated through “samples” of the other person's handwriting. . . . “Should” an order be issued compelling the “other person” to submit to a handwriting analysis to analyze whether or not an innocent person has been wrongfully convicted? | 6. The petitioner's family hired post conviction counsel to present the “Teter of admissions” to the court under the “Newly Discovered Evidence” pretext. The attorney presented the issue as a “Brady Violation”, alleging the State had prior knowledge of the existence of the letter. The letter was not received from F.D.L.E. Until the petitioner was * . already in prison over this conviction. . . . Is it a substantive due process violation prohibiting the petitioner from filing a Belated Rule 3.850 (b)(1) Motion to present evidence that could free an innocent man?