Where deference is the only issue singled out by a Court of Appeals as the only question as to debatability, and that specific deference goes directly to a trial court's factual finding that requires a credibility determination concerning an attorney's provision of a favorable plea offer, does a court of appeals err by finding the said deference not debatable when there is cold, hard attorney's credibility, or any deference to it, not only unreasonable and debatable and uncontroverted evidence that would make the but completely impossible in this space and time continuum?

Whether a court of appeals erred in finding that deference to a trial court's factual finding on an attorney's provision of a favorable plea offer was not debatable, despite uncontroverted evidence that would make the attorney's credibility, or any deference to it, completely impossible