I. The Petitioner's Substantive Claim Should Be
Heard on the Merits, as the Claim Could Not
Have Been Raised in an Earlier Proceedings.

II. The Petitioner Is in Possession of Newly
Discovered Evidence Tending to Prove His
Actual Innocence, Meaning That Further
Incarceration Would Be a Continued Violation of
the Petitioner's Fifth and Fourteenth
Amendments Right to Due Process of Law.

III. Prior Counsel was Ineffective for Failing to
Adequately Investigate the Alibi Defense.
Likewise, counsel pro se was ineffective on
appeal and in the first post conviction pleading.

IV. The Petitioner Is Entitled to an Evidentiary
Hearing on These Matters.

Whether the petitioner's substantive claim should be heard on the merits as it could not have been raised in earlier proceedings