Whether Petitioner was denied the effective assistance of counsel to which he was constitutionally entitled when trial counsel failed to present readily available evidence to support a self-defense theory at trial.

Whether Petitioner was denied the effective assistance of counsel to which he was constitutionally guaranteed when trial counsel provided Petitioner with erroneous advice that resulted in him making an unknowing and involuntary waiver of his right to appeal the guilt/innocence phase of his jury trial.

Whether Petitioner was denied the effective assistance of counsel to which he was constitutionally guaranteed when trial counsel failed to object to improper argument and offers of proof during closing argument and failing to object to the playing of 911 tapes.

Whether Petitioner was denied the effective assistance of counsel guaranteed him under federal law when trial counsel waived his inherent right to personally testify without consulting him.

Whether Petitioner was denied the effective assistance of counsel guaranteed him under federal law when trial counsel failed to prepare or present a defense to the charge of first degree burglary, which was the basis of the Commonwealth creating aggravating circumstances and penalties.

Whether Petitioner was denied the effective assistance of counsel guaranteed him under federal law when trial counsel argued to the jury that Petitioner was in fact the initial aggressor.

Whether the District Court, as well as the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals acted contrary to, or under an unreasonable application of federal law when it deemed multiple issues as procedurally barred, despite the manifest injustice of failing to entertained key, exculpatory issues and claims.

Effective-assistance-of-counsel