Whether the lower courts' decisions were contrary to or involved an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law and an unreasonable determination of facts in light of the evidence presented regarding the petitioner's guilty plea, prosecutorial misconduct, ineffective assistance of trial and PCRA counsel, and procedural default

QUESTION(S) PRESENTED 1. In reference to Petitioner's Guilty Plea and Prosecutorial misconduct, the decisions of the lower courts are contrary to, or involv[ing] an unreasonable application of, clearly established . Federal law as determined by the Supreme Court and, an unreasonable determination of facts in light of the evidence presented in the State Court proceeding. . . 2. In reference to ineffective assistance of trial counsel and ineffective assistance of PCRA ao counsel as cause for default, the decisions of the lower. courts are contrary to, or involv[ing] an . . unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law as determined by the Supreme Court and, an unreasonable determination of facts in light of the evidence presented in the State Court proceeding.’ . ; ; . 3. Concerning procedural default and due diligence, the decisions of the lower courts are contrary to, or involv[ing] an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law as . _ determined by the Supreme Court and, an unreasonable determination of facts in light of the . ; evidence presented in the State Court proceeding. | a Bo LISTOF PARTIES =~ . 4 All parties appear in the caption of the case on the cover page. [ ] All parties do not appear in the caption of the case on the cover page. A list of : . all