Whether the State violated the Due Process clause

QUESTIONS PRESENTED 1. Whether the State violated the Due Process clause where it induced jurors with an incorrect legal definition of "knowingly", in such a way that relieved the State of its requirement to prove every element of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt, thus violating petitioner's Fifth, Seventh, and Fourteenth Amendment rights to the United States Constitution, and Article 1, §2, §13, and §24 of the Illinois Constitution of 1970. 2. Whether trial court allowed the State to argue an incorrect legal definition of "knowingly" in closing argument. 3. Whether trial court manifestly abused its discretion where it denied trial counsel's proposed jury instruction for "knowingly" (IPIC No. 5.01B), thus violating petitioner's Fifth, Seventh, and Fourteenth Amendment rights to the United States Constitution, and Article i, §2, §13, and §24 of the Illinois Constitution of 1970. 4. Whether trial counsel's incompetence and unprofessional errors so upset the adversarial balance between defense and prosecution that the trial was rendered unfair, and the verdict rendered unfair, thus violating petitioner's Sixth and Fourteenth Amendment rights to the United States Constitution, and Article 1, §2, §8, §13, and §24 of the Illinois Constitution of 1970. 5. Whether trial court deprived petitioner of his constitutional rights where it sentenced petitioner to 29 years in prison after having had a pretrial conference with petitioner and trial counsel, during which trialcourt | sanctioned a 12 year plea agreement on the condition that petitioner accept an Alford plea. 6. Whether trial court should have recused itself from postconviction proceedings, as it was a material witness to petitioner's allegations. . 7. Whether the State violated Due Process clause with improper remarks made during opening and closing arguments. 8. Whether appellate counsel denied petitioner the effective assistance of counsel where it failed to make a : conscientious examination of the record to raise ineffective assistance claim on direct review, and failed to perfect a brief and argue meritorious grounds for reversal of petitioner’s conviction and modification of his sentence, thus violating petitioner's Sixth and Fourteenth Amendment rights to the United States Constitution, and Article 1, §2, §8, and §24 of the Illinois Constitution of 1970.