Whether the warrantless search and seizure of February 14, 1991 violated the 4th and 14th Amendment rights

Questions presented Continues Whether my arrest wlas retaliation foc me AN'ng a CV Com pleortat against the acreshing otffkicer. Due ta the Lact that thece wias no Probable Cause fo acvest. Me. The Lact of the civil Sult vuas Stated at teal Lt Io on transeriot. YO Prior Conviction uSed For Enhanced punishment. . ZX. Whether prior convichon #1190 wtas Voluntary) Knowing» Gnd intelligently made. whether there wias a factual basis for +he PleaThere fe no evidence to Surrort this Charge: ai. whether the indictment ia Prior conviction # 1199 . Fatal ly delechive for fatlure to State ail the Clements of Statute? MSS. Code Mn. II-N1-23Av, ithother x plead Guilty 0 a Crime without having been informed of the true noture and elements: i. ulhether Orior conviction # lito {8.a Prima facie Case of= denial of Counsel and defective Indictment (11) ( ee . Whether Counsel ulas neltective_ loc not arguing ill€gal Cearth and S€izuce, aI. whether CounSel «Jas nettective for nok arguing lack ot Probable cause for arrest UT. whether CoumSel utaS in ettective Lor not rePrecenting to the Jury that Some one else had confessed to Hhe Crime. IW. —_ | Whether Counsel usas on etlective Lor allowing an alleged oral Confession, that had been f Guppressed, Jo ta the duty> The allege of Confession if February It, 19976 Vv, whether Counsel clas neltective for a(lourina an unconstitutional Prior conviction be used Lor enhanced Punishments . fi) , Questions fresented Continses VT « Whether #rial Counsel was neffective for allousing an alleged written Statement to go ts the Jury, The Same alleged writen Statement that ula$ the subsect of the Suppression hearing « Which allegedly Stated ZX made an oral ron#OSSion at fhe Scene Of arrest. The cuhStance of this wri ¢ten Statement wtaS Suppressed. Being the oral Conte Ssion. See aprendiy IS. aor. Whether trial Counsel ulas in effective for not arguing the alleged written Statement as medlmissible ev ‘dence. Hr Whether all of the above constitute. (ineffective trial Cosel, in violation of wy bo” and (4"" anendment rights under the ILS. consti fut ioni(v} ZXTT_.« ae Constructive Denial of counsel an ferent = — IL, APpeat counsel failed to raise any of the meritorious issues on aPbleals |, Wlarcantless Seatch, dl, Warlant less arcest, 3, Fabricated evidence. 4, Some one else Con eS Sed to the Crime L ustas Convicted for, &, ReaSonable doubt. b, The using of Suppressed evidence 9, tnbutticient trial Counsel, $, Failure to raise the issue of retaliation as the motive for the arrest a. . Atter my appeal wlas affirm ed, MS. RoSS crop ped my Case cl thout Filing for rehearing: JIL. my rights under the b** amend meat were viglated by trial and aPPellate counsels. Strickland V, Udashingten, Yolo U.S, bb (1984). (vi ] _auestion 6) Presested Continages Ar ° Whether Lhe court oF Bppeals oF MississiPer, athirmation of Jackbon v. state, 79% Go.dd 7%b [2oo!), Crfoneous and Controry to Federal saul Aebendi< fa Which 7s my Case foc Possession of Cotine ulith intents | ey Whether the court oF HpPealsS of MississiPpi, decieion in DackSon V. State, # I020-CP-00 4 -COA ( 2021 \) lnwhich it denied my yst-conviction Pekition Lor redress Concerning riot Con vieton # 1190) CF roneous and Contrary to Federal lou’, When © received a Copy of Hrs ruling (+ wlas to lote +0 afbeal. Ae they de al! of my Pos4~Con viction falingS é That ts why ask this court for hell in thig mattet. J) The above Constitute €X haustlon of my: otate Courd remedtess. 2G US.Co aA5S4 (b) Supreme court Rule 2ol4)(a). 7, Whether Petitioner have made a Priwia facie 9¢ S.C. 2d44(bl. question) Preseated con tinde? _ Actual Denfal oF Counsel At plea hearin 7 epeae Conui op whe ert las denied actual Counsel at my” hearing Pett oner State that he wias totally Ai our counsel at hiS Plea hearings Which Vs evident by the CC Einal Oudamen’ ar Canvithion®is not Signed bY any attomey