Whether defense counsel's failure to request a pretrial immunity hearing constitutes ineffective assistance of counsel under the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments, particularly in light of Florida's Stand Your Ground law and potential ex post facto constitutional concerns

1. Defense Counsel was ineffective for failing to request a pretrial immunity hearing based on erroneous reasoning that Appellant was not entitled to the Florida Stand Your Ground immunity laws in violation of the 6th and 14th Amendments of the US Constitution. The State and U.S. Circuit Courts decided an important question of federal law (ex post facto) that has not been, but should be, settled by this court has decided an important federal question in a way that conflicts with relevant decisions of this Court decisions in Peugh v. U.S. 133 S. Ct. 2072 (2013) and Carmell vs.Texas, 120 S. Ct. 1620 (2000). 2. The question whether a state law is properly characterized as falling under the Federal Constitution's Art I, 10, cl 1 prohibition against ex post facto laws is a federal question that the United States Supreme Court determines for itself. i