Whether the petitioner's Sixth Amendment right to effective assistance of counsel was infringed when counsel failed to argue the plain view doctrine's applicability in light of technological advances and Fourth Amendment protections

1. Whether the petitioner ’s Sixth Amendment right to the effective assistance of counsel was infringed upon when counsel failed to argue that, in order for the plain view doctrine, an exception to the warrant requirement of the Fourth Amendment ’s protection against the Unreasonable Search and Seizure of the Government, to apply, the Government must be occupying a place it was lawfully entitled to be, particularly in light of today ’s technological advances. 2. Whether, despite the fact that the imposition of sentence may result in the same sentence, was counsel ’s performance deficient and the petitioner prejudiced when counsel failed to file a Rule 28 (j) during the pendency of the petitioner ’s direct appeal which would have allowed the petitioner to be resentenced.