Did the lower Court err in finding that Petitioner's Conviction and sentence were not obtained unconstitutionally in violation of due process rights?

Couri err in finding that the Petit »' the \H\V» KmencWnt Due Process newly erased Soutk Carolina Supreme Court procedure, governing direct review? See lAackv. State, H2>3 S.C 3.4>7, ?>5g, SX ‘ Sid Ud6 (aoaiOh Did the 1 t entitled tooner uuas no oujer 3.. Did the lower Court err In finding that the Petitioner ’s Conviction and send not obtained unconst if utionallu in violation of United States v. Chat ^5^ Vod \et^ Cloth Cir. 3.66(f), where the trence man was ial Court gave the Jury 3$ inferences of rmplied malice.? D*d the lower-Court err winding Corifraryto State Vib/ilhams, *13.1 S.C.l^jSaS S.£. 3ld "1 C>aC^° '•,that Petitioner can attempt to ki|l another with implied malice, where nosocb criming offense ex. i$t as an attempt to achieve an unintended P result? >t entitled to a due process tte trial courts unconstitutional inferenceH. Did the lower Court err in finding that Petiti yWck y. S\ote , beW\ed review to cba\\ of malice (<fromtbe use of a deadly weapon* 1 lAahce Charge?toner was no enge 5» Did the lower Court err in boding tha\ Petiti t entitled to a due process lAachv.State , belated direct review ho challenge ike trial court unconstitutional burden df orcof on Se\f *defloner was r\o dent °f trial counsel's deficient performance?md ense epen? due process rigtt 4o foily and fairly material factsL. Did fine lower Court err in finding that Petitioner ’s present, argue and defend htS initial PCjl allegat fitubonelly violated wf,ionS and Supporting fwo Separate occassions and evidence, were notuncons ere on fke ?CR. Court stopped H\«l hearing io ad rnonish feVi'tioner » \\ »it conduciveiS no "VV>e Court ’s V»m&.