1) Whether or not the Indiana Supreme Court/Court of Appeals has entered a
decision in conflict with other decision(s) previously made in the United States
Supreme Court on important matter regarding violation(s) of the 4th, 5th, 6th and
14th amendment(s) of the United States Constitution [and] has decided an
important federal question in a way that conflicts with a decision by a State Court
of last resort (i.e. the Indiana State Supreme Court) and has so far departed from
the accepted and usual course of judicial proceedings and has sanctioned such a
departure by the lower court(s) in this matter in a way that conflicts with relevant
decisions of this United States Supreme Court as to call for an exercise of this
Court 's supervisory power and Judicial Review.

2) Whether or not the Petitioner was seized illegally and held in violation of the
4th amendment to the United States Constitution and the denial of a fair and
impartial trial by jury in violation of the 5th, 6th and 14th amendment(s) to the
United States Constitution , by the admission of evidence that should have been
subject to the 'exclusionary rule ' in relation to claim(s) made in any and all the
following Cause Number(s);
STATE OF INDIANA (Plaintiff) v. ROBERT H. SMITH (Defendant)
Wabash County, Indiana Trial Cause: 85C01-1608-F4-925! and
STATE OF INDIANA (Appellee- ROBERT H. SMITH (Appellant-Petitioner)
Respondent) Indiana Court of Appeals/Supreme Court; 85A05-1712-CR-2908;v.
(Specifically that the Petitioner Robert H. Smith on direct review suffered undue
and unfair prejudice when appellate counsel failed to raise the issue(s) and to
actively challenge the admission of evidence that should have been subject to the
exclusionary rule ', due to the ineffective assistance of any and all counsel(s)
conducting the Petitioner Robert H. Smith 's trial and direct appeal, in violation of
the 5th, 6th and 14th amendment(s) to the United States Constitution. (See)
Strickland v. Washington, 466 US 668, 104 S.Ct. 2052 (1984).

3) Whether or not the Petitioner Robert H. Smith was unduly prejudiced when
the Wabash County Circuit Court #1 by the improper admission of extrinsic
evidence relating to prior bad acts, as well as his trial counsel 's failure(s) to compel
a complaining adverse witness (Name- Amanda Snow) for the purposes of to have
the ability to impeach an adverse witness 's prior inconsistent statement(s) under
Indiana Rule of Evidence 613. That the trial court erroneously allowed a witness
named John Gillam to supplant testimony for a complaining witness (Name:
Amanda Snow) in violation of the 'Hearsay Rule '. (See) Indiana Rule of Evidence
801 et seq.

4) That although "[sltate courts are the principal forum for asserting
constitutional challenges to state convictions. " (Referencing) Harrington v. Richter,
562 US 86 @ 103 (2011). That [it is] no longer to be true in relation to the State of
Indiana for at least some 'Strickland ' claim(s). (

Whether the Indiana Supreme Court/Court of Appeals has entered a decision in conflict with other decisions previously made in the United States Supreme Court