1. Is petitioner (Gibbons) procedurally defaulted on his claim of ineffective
assistance of counsel for failure to investigate a mental illness defense when
counsel was notified by client that serious mental illness symptoms were being
experienced at the time of the offense? Did the last state court, the Minnesota
court of appeals, to render an opinion:
a) Plainly state that the court was relying on a state procedural rule, the Knafflabar, to foreclose federal habeas review, (which would procedurally default
petitioner) or,
b) "Actually rely" on a state procedural rule to bar federal review?
i. If so, which state procedural rule did the opinion rely on to deny
relief of which claims? - Knaffla , Spears, or Opsahll

2. Did counsel act reasonably in not investigating a mental illness defense when
counsel was notified by client that mental health information, in the form of
Gibbons ' reliance on anti-psychotic medication, existed from the time of the
* offense for serious mental illnesses? - in a guilty plea context.

3. Was Gibbons prejudiced by counsel 's failure to investigate a mental illness
defense when counsel convinced Gibbons to plead guilty?

Is petitioner (Gibbons) procedurally defaulted on his claim of ineffective assistance of counsel for failure to investigate a mental illness defense?