1) Ms. Smith alleged that her appellete course! was ineHectue —
Tor Failing 40 raise: on appeal that hertrial counsel wos deficient
For not moving to suppress the phones records presested as ewvidence cpt her. (11s, Smith wes canvicded in lorge part, upen ,
COLT Cellular gite lecattion information), as the Supremes
© Cart of Geagia, placid a great deal oF empheis on shes
importanes. of these cell phen records, "Ln Finding no
Eleventh Gireuttt relied on appellate counsel Jonclhan Majeske,
Gwar +estimeny oF his harmful opinion "shett there woos |
No Viable besis to challeme trial counsel's effectiveness,
CHT. 44-45)
ara on +o the September 19,2018, eset hworitg

Did the Eleventh Gireust err in deferring 4 se Superior

Gout Finding tak Me, Smith was net preiodicied by her
appellate Couns Failure: do raise on appeal ttt her tial
Courel wos deficient for not moving t suppress the. phone»
records presinted as evidence, against her?

2)Ms, Smith Prepored and submrtted oF briek by the reauiveed
deadliny to substantiaie the grounds that she, raised at
hor evidentiary hearing, conducted oy September IS, Zo.
The petit) one's Former counsel Retry Zell submitted
Q® proposed order arguieg ony one of the Treva,
oyrourds Thad he, petitioner raised. The propeaed order
was submitted over seven months after the pro seu

brick woos Submitted, Ms. Smith recewed her docket
history ver Fying thet the, brie was recetud in
av FHinely Manner However, the Cows never ruled of
the brie thar was originally out .

Did the Superior Court t Habersham County
er in Failing fo rule on all the grounds heck tne.
Petitions raved on her Wert of Habeas petition"

Did the Eleventh Circuit err in deferring to the Superior Court's finding that Ms. Smith was not prejudiced by her appellate counsel's failure to raise on appeal that her trial counsel was deficient for not moving to suppress the phone records presented as evidence against her?