(1) Did the 4th Dist., Div. 1, Court of Appeal, California, err in its (a) inquiry and (b) application of Boykin / Tahl 1 analysis under its (c) "totality of circumstances " standard of review in relying on an (d) incomplete and erroneous factual record 2 in denying Appellant 's appeal of his timely and diligent Withdraw of Plea (April 23, 2018) efforts prior to Sentencing (June 7, 2018); where, Petitioner states that (e) there is substantially more than a reasonable probability 3 had Petitioner (f) been at liberty 4 subject to (i) reasonable and flexible bail 5; or, (ii) been presented with the alternative to the Plea Hearing (i.e. a bail review hearing, as had been calendared three (3) times); he would have continued to trial on all matters (as still sought) and not entered into any Plea Agreement 6, as entered into involuntary / coerced in direct exchange for that which he was already awaiting and is Constitutionally entitled to: his pre-trial liberty on reasonable terms and conditions; meeting the requisite standard of review under the proper application of such law)

(2) Is the State of California 's precedence in regard to a Remittitur issuing from the appellate court to the trial court in a criminal proceeding relying wholly and improperly on © civil proceeding precedents; with (ii) delay 7, unconstitutional and a violation of the due process clauses of the 5th and 14th Amendments, while such matter remains on direct appeal before the Supreme Court of the United States?

Did the 4% Dist., Div. 1, Court of Appeal, California, err in its inquiry and application of Boykin-Tahl analysis under its 'totality of circumstances' standard of review in relying on an incomplete and erroneous factual record?