1. Whether mewly Discovened Evidence From the American socity % crime Laboratory Advise to the sate scuntficand the oNA Evidence dunng tnal, thatwas Sdluded as proeduraly barred or presented in another pot conviction proceding shaws a probability q an acquittal.

2 Whte he Ba Vatin Reyg ice pursan o 3.20b he At Me ONA tesing and or a N Trial.

3.Whetr EVidene Mewly Discoerd ONA Evidene baded1. Advise from the American society of crime Laboratory and; 2. woice pursuant To Rule 3.220lb( filedby th Aate reliable Evidence Melessary to review ont Evidence Consitute Clain under Brady V. Margland1963.

4. Whther Mewly Discollened Evidence Cae NO'O5-O4414 CF1OA Shaw s felony murder Evidence phesented to the Jury by The defense counsel against his clint constitite a phinepal in the Fist degnee under Flonida Law, Laus of tinide section 444. 01l chapher s4-310 laws g Flonida eabish Signjicant impact onthe Voluntanness o the ped result in a manfe Injufticeandi his cent conmitted a third degree nrder by enlist an indivdual Name rutch to get her mon fum the victn nd that. pheadving and shows doulhe prosecntion by both an aduersarial depense pubic Depender in Cos noos-ol44TIOA and the sate pracecuton in cote No: os-ol44icFloA a doubhe peopardy and Vidation of the single homicide rule wherin depense counels paiinaipal helony muder theory did not consitute a lessor included offende o First degree murder to which the dependant was senfence.

Whether Amended information presented to the Jary 't Supersde The Indictment CoLe NO! 04-O108 2CFIOA to which the dependant was sentence on the caplas Indictment and did not preserved the felony and allegation and therefere Indictment Premeditated munder Hto which the dependant was sentence is so depectime Phat a judgment on convictin cannot Aand.

Whether Cse NO! 0S-Ol4414 CFIOH that Shows EVidenCe 8. presented to the jury by degense counsel allegation that his client enlist an endividual vame outch to ettart conviction eftablish degense counsel as an Adlersarial defense Counsel that Vidate dypendant sirth Amendment

That ShOWS Case NO:S-014414 CFIOA Wndera.PnpLaw; 10(b) whether the sate ose phesented to the Jurycotena os-onction Pla 8ad.82-04 2 charge and or accuse the dependant glause the death of the Victim and on was sufficient Evidence to allith that dependant caue the death of the Vichin and or tocej whtter the Aat action decision to Nolle prosequi case No: 0s- o1 4414

Whether the state court violated the defendant's constitutional rights by denying his claims of ineffective assistance of counsel, denial of due process, and denial of equal protection