Question No. 1: Whether The Court Of Appeal Should Have Granted Coa Where The District Court Employed A Constitutionally Impermissible Standard In Evaluating The Voluntariness Of The Confession In Direct Contradiction To This Courts Ruling In Rogers' V. Richmond, In That The Magistrate And State Courts Consider The Truth .Or Falsity Of A Confession In Ruling On Its Voluntariness Due To Drug Impairment/Intoxication And Sleep Deprivation, In Violation Of the Fifth, Sixth, And Fourteenth Amendment?

Question No. 2: Whether The Lower Court Misapplied The Strickland Standard To The Facts Of This Case, In Violation Of Fifth, Sixth And Fourteenth Amendment To The Constitution?

Whether the court of appeal should have granted COA where the district court employed a constitutionally impermissible standard in evaluating the voluntariness of the confession