TRIAL THERE PETITIONER HAD A CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO HAVE THE JURY INSTRUCTED ON HIS THEORY OF DEFENSE THAT WAS SUPPORTED BY THE EVIDENCE?

4) THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT HELD IN IN RE WINSHIP, 90 SCT. 1068 125 L.ED. 2D 368, 39M US 358, AND JACKSON V. VIRGINIA, 443 U.S. 307, 307 CI9Y9) THAT THE CONSTITUTION PROHIBITS THE CRIMINAL CONVICTION OF A PERSON EXCEPT UPON PROOF OF GUILT BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT. AND IT IS CLEAR THAT A STATE PRISONER WHO ALLEGES THAT EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF HIS STATE CONVICTION CANNOT BE FAIRLY CHARACTERIZED AS SUFFICIENT TO HAVE LED A RATIONAL TRIER OF FACT TO FIND GUILT BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT HAS STATED A FEDERAL CONSTITUTIONAL CLAIM. DID THE PETITIONER IN THE INSTANT CAUSE STATE A FEDERAL CONSTITUTIONAL CLAIM WHEN HIS COUNSEL ARGUED THAT THE STATE'S EVIDENCE WAS INSUFFICIENT AND THAT THE STATE FAILED TO PROVE EVERY ELEMENT OF THE CRIME BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT AT PETITIONER'S JURY HEARING ON AUGUST M RODR?

5) THE PETITIONER WAS TRIED FOR TWO (2) COUNTS OF ALLEGED LEWD AND LASCIVIOUS CONDUCT UNDER THE TWO PRONG TEST OF KEEBLE V. UNITED STATES, 412 U.S. 205, 208 CI9MS) WHEN THE JURY RETURNED A VERDICT OF GUILTY AS CHARGED ON COUNT I AND FOUND COUNT A) ATTEMPTED LEWD OR LASCIVIOUS MOLESTATION? WHERE THE COURT HELD: IT IS NOW BEYOND DISPUTE THAT THE DEFENDANT IS ENTITLED TO A LESSER INCLUDED OFFENSE IF THE EVIDENCE COULD PERMIT A JURY RATIONALLY TO FIND HIM GUILTY OF THE LESSER OFFENSE AND ACQUIT HIM OF THE GREATER?

Whether the United States District Court and the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals erred in concluding that the Petitioner's claims of ineffective assistance of counsel and denial of due process and the right to a fair trial were not supported by the evidence