Whether the petitioner's conviction should be vacated due to ineffective assistance of counsel, leading to a violation of his constitutional rights, and allowing him to pursue a civil rights lawsuit for malicious prosecution

QUESTION PRESENTED Petitioner Wayne Harris was accused of selling drugs to a confidential . informant following an investigation in Luzerne county Pennsylvania 2003. The records reflect that Mr Harris was being investigated by Luzerne county officials for , , selling of drugs. Doing so a confidential informant was used to make a control buy for crack cocaine. Although the informant wore electronic device to record conversation of the drug sales the Recording did not reflect Mr Harris mentioning anything about drugs or the sale of drugs in any capacity. Although the Informant brought drugs to officials that he had allegedly purchased from Mr Harris, the arrest of Mr Harris occurred several days later, and there was no evidence that Mr Harris was found with the mark money used to make the control buy. During Mr Harris : arrest he was assaulted numerous time and sustain bodily injuries, and once in custody he was deprived of medical attention that could serve as records of his injuries. Officials however seek to justify the assault charge Mr Harris with resisting | arrest. Once in custody Tara Rosengrant a Caucasian female hired an attorney Stephen Urbanski to advised Mr Harris to plead guilty. Failing to get Mr Harris to plead guilty Mr Urbanski abruptly quit the case reasoning Mrs Rosengrant has not paid him. Mrs Rosengrant had personal love interest into Mr Harris, Mr Harris however, was a ; married man and had no part to due with Mrs Rosengrant harassment. Once Mr ; ° Urbanski was excused from the case the court appoint Public defender John Danovan to represent Wayne Harris. The Public defender on numerous time attempt to advised Mr Harris to plead guilty and when Mr Harris refused He too like Mr Urbanski ask to be excused from the case arguing he had conflict of interest since he is also representing in a separate case the confidential informant who is the government ; sole witness against Mr Harris. The public defender realize that the confidential informant was charge with drug sales, and believe he would have to prove that ; either the Cl was a drug dealer to exonerate Mr Harris which in turn would convict the Cl on his unrelated drug offense. Once again Petitioner Wayne Harris was deprived of constitutional representation. Finally another attorney was appointed and he too advised Mr Harris to plead guilty. None of the attorney advising petitioner to plea guilty advised him of the deportation consequences. : , While in immigration custody Wayne Harris went to the Law Library where Dean McKenzie was working as a paralegal and law librarian. Wayne Harris request help and Dean McKenzie filed a motion to the Pennsylvania superior court to vacate the guilty plea knowing by doing so it would prevent Mr Harris deportation. Mr Dean M McKenzie also consider Mr Harris claims and conclude based on what he was told . that Mr Harris was assaulted based upon his race, especially that the offense he was accused of did not warrant the excess use of force that had occurred. Mr McKenzie on behalf of petitioner advised filing a discrimination law suit under 1983 however by the time the court began to serve the summons to all the defendants Mr Harris was removed from the United States to Jamaica. Not having any legal assistance in Jamaica nor financial means he was force to abandon all his legal battle, including not being served any government mail of the result of his filings. Mr Harris won his appeal to the Pennsylvania Superior court who agree that Mr Harris did not had effective legal representation according to the US constitution, and remand the case for the lower court to Appoint a counsel to resolve Mr Harris : criminal matter. The Superior court decision came too late however, since the state turn petitioner over to Immigration who remove him from the United States back to Jamaica. As a result of the removal petitioner were never aware that he won, and only just of late he discovered the superior court rulings. . ; : Although the