Question One: Whether, counsel's admitted misadvice with respect to Petitioner's designation, its direct result of imposition of "specialized supervision by probation officers" pursuant to Florida Sexual Predator Act, F.S. 775.21(3)(b)2&(e)1, and the designations triggering of the maximum level of supervision by Fla. Conditional Release F.S. 947.1405(c); amounts, to gross misinformation by counsel, considering the prejudicial aspect of losing the lesser favorable of the two available plea offers, and acceptance of the lengthier plea, strongly suggests - the determinative issue — was to avoid all post prison supervision when released from prison?

Question Two: If so, as case in point, the deliberate exclusion in all below court rulings and reports, of the existence of two available plea offers, whereby, allowing the courts to analyze prejudice using Strickland/ Hill test, infra; rather than the correct analysis defined in Strickland/Frye and Lafler infra; what remedy does the public have in addressing Due Process violations when courts, by questionable tactics, refuse to follow Supreme Court precedent?

Whether counsel's admitted misadvice regarding Petitioner's designation as a sexual predator and the resulting lifetime supervision amounted to gross misinformation, prejudicing Petitioner's acceptance of a lengthier plea to avoid post-prison supervision