I. Whether The Maryland Appellate Courts In Concluding Pena Failed To Sustain His Burden Of Proving He Did Not Voluntarily And Knowingly Enter A Guilty Plea To The Crime Erred Or Abused Its Discretion Since Those Conclusions Conflict With This Court's Bradshaw v. Stumpf Opinion That The Plea Record Suffices?

(a) Whether Since This Court In Bradshaw v. Stumpf Scaled Back The Presumption Suggested In Henderson v. Morgan, 426 U.S. 637, 96 S.Ct. 2253, 49 L.Ed. 105 (1976) Whether Without Defense Counsel Testifying At The Hearing The Maryland Appellate Courts Erred Or Abused Its Discretion In Concluding Based Only On The Coram Nobis Court's Presumptive Knowledge Of Defense Counsel's Reputation Of Being Mindful Of His Clients' Rights That Pena Pleaded Guilty Voluntarily With The Understanding Of The Crime Elements?

(b) Whether The Maryland Appellate Courts Erred Or Abused Its Discretion In Looking Beyond The Guilty Plea Record To Conclude The Initial Appearance Report Serve As Proof Pena Had Been Advised Or Understood The Crime Elements In Accordance With This Court's Controlling Precedent Decided In Bradshaw v. Stumpf?

II. Whether The Maryland Appellate Courts Erred Or Abused Its Discretion In Concluding That The Trial Judge's Use Of The 2001 Convictions And Fifteen Year Sentence Invalid Under Bradshaw v. Stumpf As Reasons For Imposing A Consecutive Twenty-Five Year Sentence Did Not Constitute Significant Collateral Consequences?

Whether the Maryland appellate courts erred or abused their discretion