I. Appellant alleged that Trial Court gave a defective/deficient Third Degree Murder instruction to the jury, by failing to provide the jury with instructions that are needed to convict appellant of third degree murder, confusing and misleading the jury to a verdict of guilty of third degree murder. Appellant also alleges that Trial counsel was ineffective of assistance, when counsel failed to object to the defective instructions, that were giving to the jury, which violated Appellant Fourteenth Amendment due process of law and Sixth Amendment right to effective assistance of counsel , caused prejudiced to Appellant and not giving Appellant the opportunity of a fair and impartial trial.

Did the Tidal (hurt erred failing to pcwide the jury with the entirety of the Third Degree Mncder instructions?

II. Appellant alleged that Trial Court failed to prove all elements beyond a reasonable doubt for a verdict of guilty or not guilty of Attempted Robbery of a Motor Vehicle, by failing to give the jury an entire element of 'Attempt' that requires intent for a conviction of Robbery of a Motor Vehicle, without the complete instruction, the jury cannot find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Trial Counsel was ineffective for failing to object to the faulty instructions, violating Appellant Fourteenth Amendment and Sixth Amendment causing prejudiced to the Appellant.

Did the Trial (hurt erred giving an Incatplete instruction far the Attenpted Robbery of a Motor Vdrarla charge, violatirg Appellant Fourteenth Anaxhent due process of law. fes the trial counsel ineffective far failirg to object to the faulty instruotdai?

III. Appellant alleged that Trial Counsel was ineffective for failing to request a jury instruction of sudden provocation (heat of passion). Appellant also alleged that the Trial Court "abused its discretion by giving an Erroneous/Incomplete instruction for voluntary manslaughter. Trial Counsel was ineffective was effective failing object to such an instruction. Appellant was convicted, in large part, upon the third degree murder instruction that was giving to the jury. The erroneous/incomplete manslaughter instruction by the Trial Gourt, the failure of Trial Counsel objecting to the faulty instruction and the failure of Trial counsel to request an instruction of sudden provocation (heat of passion) when the evidence called for such an instruction violated Appellant Fourteenth Amendment due process of the law and Appellant Sixth Amendment right to effective of assistance of counsel caused actually prejudiced to Appellant.

Did Trial Qxnsel rendered ineffectiveness ty failing to request a jury instruction heat of passim? Did Ite Trial Cburt abused its discretion givirg an Erroneous/ Ircaiplete instruction far \folmtary thnsla^nter?

Did the Trial Court err in failing to provide the jury with the entirety of the Third Degree Murder instructions?