Whether the evidence was insufficient to find Petitioner guilty beyond a reasonable doubt for assault with intent to murder on the theory of transferred intent, whether the trial court erred in scoring offense variables, whether the trial court rendered an inconsistent verdict, whether the judgment of conviction was void for want of jurisdiction, and whether Petitioner was denied effective assistance of counsel

I. Was the evidence insufficient to find Petitioner guilty beyond a reasonable doubt for assault with intent to commit murder on the theory of transferred intent? US CONST, AMS V, VI, XIV; MICH. CONST, 1963, ART 1, §§ 17, 20. II. Did the trial court erred in the scoring of certain offense variables? US CONST, AMS VI, XIV; CONST, 1963, ART. 1, §20? III. Did trial court render an inconsistent verdict in finding Petitioner not guilty of four counts and guilty of one count of assault with intent to murder on the basis of transferred intent when all five complainants were in the same car, thereby requiring reversal of the one conviction of assault with intent to murder as to the two-year-old victim who was shot? US CONST, AMS V, VI, XIV; MICH. CONST, 1963, ART 1, §§ 17, 20. IV. Was any judgment of conviction against Mr. Mason from the circuit court void for want of jurisdiction to try him on the sixth charge of assault with intent to murder where the prosecuting attorney voluntarily entered a Nolle Prosequi during the preliminary examination regarding that charge and the district court entered an order of Nolle Prosequi to dismiss it? US CONST, AMS VI, XIV; CONST, 1963, ART. 1, §20? V. Was Petitioner denied his sixth amendment right to the effective assistance of counsel where defense counsel ’s performance was so deficient that prejudice should be presumed and in fact fell below an objective standard of reasonableness? US CONST, AMS V, VI, XIV: MICH. CONST, 1963, ART 1, §§ 17, 20. VI. Was Petitioner denied the effective assistance of counsel on appeal where appellate counsel Arthur H. Landau ’s performance was constitutionally deficient to the point that it fell below an objective standard of reasonableness? US CONST, AMS VI, XIV; CONST, 1963, ART. 1, §20?