(A). When a defendant pleads guilty to a charge, in addition to the "direct" and "collateral" consequences of the party does the Fourteenth Amendment require to be told by the court of direct consequences of how he or she act for remaining charges?

(2). Does it matter differently in the 1.M 114 m=71 or a court for remaining charges?

(3). Is a court required to cite such a defendant whether his or her attorney(s) have discussed such specific tactics or strategy that will, or may, be done differently? Actions may include: adding new jury instructions; striking jury instructions; proposing in limine motions; presence or absence of direct examination; witnesses to be called or stricken.

(C). Since the Sixth Amendment is a violation of the right when that attorney fails to inform defendant of "in direct" and substantial consequences, when the party pleads guilty to one and is it now requiring conduct on evidentiary hearing to address this necessary to submit?

(D). Should Hill's convictions be vacated because he ultimately didn't make an intelligent, knowing, voluntary decision when pleads guilty to the court?

2. Does utilization of "inferior degree" jury instruction are proper? Double-Jeopardy concern?

3(A). Is it a violation of the Due Process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment for state courts to analyze and process lesser included offenses differently then "superior degree" offenses; by including into the fact-findings of the jury in coming to conclusions of law whether or not only the lesser offense was committed?

3(B). Should "inferior degree" offenses be treated as simply a lesser subcategory of lesser included offenses?

4(A). Were Hill's attorneys ineffective, thus violating Sixth Amendment right, for failing to submit the lesser included offense jury instruction on Washington's Unlawful Display of a Weapon (RCW 9.41.27) in a trial where he was charged with three "against persons" felony with a period-spraygun?

4(B). If all of Hill's conviction be vacated?

5(A). Were Hill's attorneys ineffective violating his Sixth Amendment right, for failing to submit "Voluntary Intoxication" jury instruction (9A.16.=80) when Hill BMC all?

5(B). Is should?

6(A). Were Hill's attorneys ineffective such violation his Sixth Amendment right, for failing to submit "Unwitting Possession" jury instruction for his "Unlawful Possession of a Concealed Sawed-off Shotgun Force (RCW 9.0, 43) charge?

6(B). If, should that conviction be vacated?

Should be regularly informed if instructed they that can, and should, cite witnesses during trial; opposed to asking the court questions after an 20ft deliberations some into?

Whether a defendant who pleaded guilty to a charge should be denied collateral consequences to be told at the time of sentencing, resulting in a substantial confession of guilt or innocence