A) Is petitioner entitled to a constitutional review and his court on his presented claims at the appeal level regarding his Effective Assistance of Counsel, for further 42 U.S.C. § 1983 relief under the Sixth Amendment of the United States Constitution, i.e.:

1) Involuntary plea, claim attorney coercion;

2) use of evidence not adjudicated in court;

3) use of extraneous statements in violation of articles on law;

B) Is petitioner entitled to a constitutional review and grant of habeas relief due to destruction of evidence prior to conclusion of initial appeal;

C) Will the court of knowing and intelligent waiver be allowed due to violation of Federal Rules as to the capacity of the petitioner;

D) Did the Trial Court abuse discretion in violating Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure at abandonment on withdrawal of plea clause referring back to the evidence presented by Examiners?

Questions Not Addressed (Specifically) at COA:

1) Was counsel ineffective at punishment hearing for failing to object to involuntary plea in absence of mitigating circumstances (claim A(C) petition for habeas relief);

2) Was counsel ineffective for not objecting to extraneous conduct not adjudicated in court (claim A(C) petition for habeas relief);

3) Was counsel ineffective for failing to object to abuse of discretion of the trial court in allowing extraneous statements of victim, guardian, or parties injected in violation of constitutional and statutory laws (claim 1(a) petition for habeas relief);

4) Was counsel ineffective for not objecting to the barred use of mitigating information for a redetermination of sentence which would constitute abuse of discretion (claim 1(b) petition for habeas relief).

Whether the petitioner is entitled to constitutional review and relief on his claims at the appeal level regarding his ineffective assistance of counsel, including claims of involuntary plea, coercion by attorney, use of evidence not adjudicated in court, and use of extraneous statements in violation of law