WHETHER THE ORDER ENTERED ON JULY 24, 2019, BY THE THREE JUDGE PANEL, PER CURIAL AFFIRMED THE TRIAL COURT'S ERRONEOUS RULING CREATED A CONFLICT WITH OTHER COURTS PERTAINING TO THE CLAIMS PRESENTED FOR REVIEW IN THE APPELLANT'S 3.850 MOTION?

WHETHER THE TRIAL COURT COMMITTED PROCEDURAL ERRORS WHEN IT SUMMARILY DENIED A PROPERLY FILED AND SUFFICIENTLY PLED 3.850 MOTION FOR POST CONVICTION RELIEF FILED ON JULY 31, 1991 WITHOUT ATTACHMENT OF ANY PORTION OF THE RECORD THAT CONCLUSIVELY SHOWS THE MOVANT WAS ENTITLED TO NO RELIEF?

WHETHER THE APPELLANT WAS PROCEDURALLY PREJUDICED WHEN THE TRIAL COURT FAILED TO ADDRESS THE MERITS OF THE CLAIMS RAISED IN HIS 3.850 MOTION FOR POST CONVICTION RELIEF FILED ON JANUARY 14, 2019, THUS DEPRIVED HIM OF CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS OF DUE PROCESS WITHOUT ATTACHMENT OF THE RECORD?

WHETHER THE APPELLANT WAS PROCEDURALLY PREJUDICED AND SUBSTANTIALLY, BECAUSE OF PROSECUTORIAL AND POLICE MISCONDUCT FOR WILLFULLY WITHHELD EXCULPATORY EVIDENCE FAVORABLE TO THE DEFENSE AFTER IT WAS LEGALLY REQUESTED BY THE DEFENSE COUNSEL?

WHETHER THE APPELLANT WAS DEPRIVED DUE PROCESS AND A FAIR TRIAL WHERE THE PROSECUTOR FAILED TO PROVE THE ESSENTIAL ELEMENT PERTAINING TO THE DATES OF THE ALLEGATIONS BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT AS REQUIRED FOR CONVICTION?

Whether the lower court erred in dismissing petitioner's claims for lack of standing and failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted