Whether the defendant was denied effective assistance of counsel

No question identified. : ta 1? _ : ‘ eee Queshons ProsenTe ] : toa , t : eee Os, 7 * may, Fla wd NI MCA? iNet Fechve Mssislénce of Cous Ais Mare ¢. yflerzo. nn . d t t ‘ eee t u a yy t c * . ¢ . ld . ag , ee € ¢ t ox WVinel ie LS Bp BUG Hid, Th LOKEGIAY Wi ONduUe AIT: OUMNSE presen/ed . q 7 + . f . . . an oe ‘ it yt 4 . & ‘ me Uy WY) LHC BYTES: BV ER finid THEA Ae wired That The Che Active : binel hp _. heres wirredis | ee . . . + é. : e ‘ . : t 8 i ocreed ; a, oh ya te: a ee ” . e od lander dnin Thal he Thos h thel the Sheri 7? Walled fayson Inble WHS IN Fact an RrresT couareent,’ | : TT aI I I I ___Pasecuifiivel tlscomdycT mark wel . et U VW ‘ jy. . ¢ 7 9 : felhe py és “LIGS riff Fu, ANaniing 2p raseN tlio OF #8 WAleriAl $A Hild The eee HT ty” ety g AG, “dn vessI Ay OF WIRY /f SLISONCe BI IWR BMA Cony bal MORVLA Biel Tihs Sg VUSCONAUCY eee 1 fe Ge ge ap 5 ~ pt gs _ tg 1 Bale [he proseculey bmilled cisclositig Te:mne And the Cou LAL JME DOHice dlcumMer fed -tus ee . t \ LS _ NT can at e. Tne tieceates © os , ; ‘ t : ' f Sheltie BS # dei/bevele WustearesiRiion OF -# mnleyiel Jrel Jnl mrevrk i ASHISAA 4 2 fyaudulenl hy, Thay (Nef Cy; doe hid praviidea HOTN Wh jre AYVes] eee tet 1 7 Fi tt Wittel he WHS AYA STRIEM En ov # mM epresen(A Yeu DF BR Woalertr TAC Rud Tha . : apt tp t 4 ‘ . t ( J renfl __CGPESF La JUGICIBL Was Cody Tha LOGO 1 PN. preseNled Me with y “4 L ’ on é aan] _s T . SysJem_ documenfe, : Feiern oy Ab ce of [) HAN 2. Slate UT OF Ropeds., wry lb, Jolp Qed. Se ane naan , : t . { 4 ~ AANCIHOY DY NAT [he Sie Bom (sutT pase TUEING. DM BY CV rAK OU Nut Ob Phe > F ‘ ! aoe 4 : Bred ‘MA Rid Aue © UNG, © NER [he CL RAL, Midence A! RS Guttcleut Te show thnt the Cour? issued pa BYVesT~ ley VANT éthyt this f Ourd s : i, Doole! . ; oe: ; decision IN Erp Kes Tiki hk preso a Ph Wy) eves > the devendénl gud ‘a eee t { Me nm t perme NSpecl/on RNa’ Cop ‘ Aud (2 “ine hel Re STH Ci IND VCS oI emcee a ' Z t a} a t 4 . deFeus sé evide, ENCE. the No pyres] utavyeny Uses 1ssued . Bnd No prres] wWHrrenTy wins in the i j u 4a ‘ : ecord on Booed)? (2! thet milerlel evideuce was oxcluded.As parl of the vecord ; : 14 Attn eet sf tS v7 \ : \ \ aa it me @ e \ i diget D ~ aad noe / : Nhe¥ ne Tedeyval a Lis myoroperly delerved To SIRT? CourT of Heae nts Bnd + . d . >. nhused ‘le discrefa When it declded that an Arrest? warrant nd been tse ued t “he oy a ¥ “ ‘ a t ¢ ; 7 . ‘ i Abuse of tiserelion 2 United Sikes Appenls Court ___ Whether av Nal The Us, App, Lo t hyp. Cd ils decislsn ON by Crrsvesus. We O . Yhe_ [rnch Rw, illag CenTvary. Ta. Bracks Vi Mapvlesn WK. ON CUIdDENCE Wee | a x ase Yesull, The STale di wat Ite Th disclose the woevenyys nr ve vee . LL ~~ a na Jthy B. Myles, #7744 bb ‘ / i Michigan Crh, Incl/ane YO348 eee J eee See nr rer te : ! tn ey ee J po ap ;