Whether Petitioner was denied his Sixth Amendment right to effective assistance of counsel at the PCR hearing, by trial Counsel's failure to object to prejudicial statements and Expert Opinions during the State's Gunshot Residue Expert fitness testimony, while giving his Opinion and Conclusion in contrast to the actual forensic Exclusion Results.

Whether Petitioner was denied his Sixth Amendment right to effective assistance of counsel at the PCR hearing, by trial Counsel's failure to file a proper Rule 59(e) Motion to Alter or Amend the Judgment pursuant to Rule 59(e), SCRCP, to properly preserve for Appellate review the properly raised issues at the PCR hearing, but not ruled upon by the PCR Court, and/or filing an improper Rule 59(e) Motion to Reconsider, which did not preserve the properly raised, but not ruled upon issues of Petitioner's claims/issues/arguments that Petitioner's claims to be procedurally barred.

Whether Petitioner was denied his Sixth Amendment right to effective assistance of counsel by PCR Appellate Counsel, which Counsel refused to and failed to raise any of Petitioner's meritorious claims to the State's Highest Court (South Carolina Supreme Court) for appellate review, and/or raising frivolous claims raised by PCR Appellate Counsel and raised for the non first time, when it was raised to the South Carolina Supreme Court, which was the only claim PCR Appellate Counsel raised to the State's Highest Court, which was denied by the South Carolina Supreme Court, when the State's Highest Court did not have jurisdiction to rule on issue that was not raised at Petitioner's PCR hearing, but it was ruled anyway.

Did the PCR judge examine the State's SOL Eyewitness account of the fact that he initially did not identify petitioner or his co-defendant by name despite knowing both of them, and described the suspects involved in the shooting as one individual with a black stripe down the side, and did trial set ineffective in failing to cross-examine one individual stopped shortly after the shooting consistent with the shell casings found at the scene of the shooting.

whether Petitioner was denied his Sixth Amendment right to effective assistance of counsel and Fourteenth Amendment Due Process right to a fair trial