(1) Ground 1: The evidence was not sufficient to prove the State charged the offense of an irrelevant and constitutionality of the conviction, duly asserted to this Court.

(2) Ground 2: Prejudicial admission demonstrating video production of methamphetamine deprived Mr. hovin of a favorable trial, requiring a fair modification.

(3) Ground 3: The prejudice pen to introduced Mr. hovin's legal history resulted in an inflated sentence.

(4) Ground 4: Under the facts of the case Mr. hovin's sentence is excessive and should be modified.

I. The Court of Appeals Erred By Determining That Petitioners IAe claim Did Not Meet The Standards Set Forth By This Court In Strickland And Evitts.

II. Apellate Counsel was constitutionally ineffective because she intentionally "bootstrapped" ineffective assistance of counsel to Propisition I (I.

Whether the trial court erred in admitting prejudicial evidence of the defendant's prior criminal history, resulting in an unfair trial and requiring a new trial