Question #1: Whether the Florida Court of Appeals unreasonably applied this Courts precedent when it upheld summary denial of a postconviction claim alleging ineffective assistance of counsel because the lawyer failed to properly investigate exculpatory and impeaching evidence of a controlled phone call, in conjunction with an interview, preventing counsel from properly advising Petitioner of the law relative to the facts, rendering his plea involuntary?

Question #2: Whether the Florida Court of Appeals unreasonably applied this Court's precedent when it upheld summary denial of a postconviction claim alleging ineffective assistance of counsel because Petitioner's plea was not knowingly, voluntarily or intelligently entered, due to counsel's multiple alleged acts or omissions?

Question #3: Whether the Florida Court of Appeals unreasonably applied this Court's precedent when it upheld summary denial of a postconviction claim alleging ineffective assistance of counsel because the lawyer failed to challenge the validity of the probable cause affidavit(s) and search warrant used to search the defendant's home and seize his computer, where the affidavit(s) were unsigned; based upon perjury; and/or otherwise deficient per the report of a forensic examiner?

Whether the Florida Court of Appeals unreasonably applied this Court's precedent