Whether the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing the petitioner's claims of due process violations and ineffective assistance of counsel when the lower court failed to provide adequate procedural protections

QUESTION(S) PRESENTED re) RI G | NAL f Does a maniFest injustice occur when the deFendant accepts a pley witlot Fhe Court or his attorney enplainyg thet pleaing to a single technics! violation of pro bation, whieh is not a Substantial aact wilthl yo latfon, Phat resalh in peciges Fie-gear protean Seachion, which rendus He plea inveluatary P Ln vielation oF due pr cash, and ada mente! enor. : 2. Whether « manifest injustice veeurced asben the Court and deFedaat's eovasel Failed to inform He deFenclant of his rig ht te withdrew ha plig prior fe Sentencing in accordance. with, Fla & Crim. & Rule # 3.170, aF kr the my Charge cas dismissed? Ly vislation of dae process, and Funcdamat! enor. 3. Whethe g manifest injusttee occurred whea He Court revo hed He deFeadaatt prvbaben For the Yechatel violation, which js nota substantial aad ctithel violation, ard seaterced hin tea Fit gost pea seaction La violatiga oF due pritess, tad Fuacl a meatal Qaryn, 4 Whethea maaikest injustice occurred when the Court and Counsel Failed h Soll, Fla R. Con. A hule 3.17003) Time aad Circumstances oF Pla, whe tk Court aad Covasel Farled ty provide Pe deFed cat wth a rtasonable amoval oF Hae fy toasde He plea. in violation oF cue process aad Fuadamentel enn? 5. Vhithe a manthest jagustiee occured when tHe court ancl tounsel Failed to ntorduce Fl ST 94 8.06 as the authority tor Vivlehuas oF pm bation tind departed Fon te essential requirements of haw then i# Stafenced the dSendeat ty an Unauthereed Fin-qear PAR myn prPen Sentence, ia violation oF dee press andl Fanclamentel error? 6, Whethe fhe 6th DCA depurtd From the essentel cegvire ments F law by Firming Pe hour Court's ra hing enpainiy an illegal Seateace , iortor¥hict-erth aad an lnvelintany plea, in conflict cxith the 644 OCHS rabng ry Bean v. State, 6023-756 Fhe. Ayp. Apr 95. 20M aad Ce vi State, 6023-919 Fhe, Arp. Mee $1, 2004, cach the dotnet cow! clings ; “Marius vi State 346 So dd 17 Fl Agp. Lord aad Watkins vi Sth, SOL023~ 3374 Fla, App. Jn 07, 2024} 7 Whale the Sth BCA deparhel Sem The esseahiil requirement oF Mau by abFicmng He lower Court's ruling Sammarily denying . . las} ted % all oF te SFendaat’s Claims withest holding an evide whiny hearing when te claims ave not conclasive 4 refited Sole 5 2alb, Cacia v 7 retecd in Greek Con¥cee wifh the datact Court rulings in Hagan . Stake, 190 Jo3d Zio Fla, Are ol6, “ on i. Jo} 3p.td 607 Fla. 2d PCA 1997, Holing ve Stale, 320 %.td Blo Fla, 2d OCA 1998, Copeland av Stk, 364 ° fa eaaght v. Sake, 187 505d 207 Fh, 6H O68 2016, Lim Bavgh « [gp DCA 2004, Faulstick v. State, SH DCA Fie Colt, Margit v2, 53d 1088 ; Stale. 20 $9 34 166 Fla, JH, OCA 20/6, Mangiri vn Stake, doz Fe S fake, 16 Sodd 454 Fla, SM OCA L004, Laing v. AIH, O70 “8 "| Rovies v, Stale, 226 S07 TOIT Pla, App 20677 la, 5th OCA 2020, Niemi 1, Stabe, 264 Sod 43 Fla. 3#, OCA 2014, and Koviey vs OTM, r