Question One: If the record reflects similar if not more egregious ineffective assistance by trial counsel. The claim was not refuted at evidentiary hearing, when compared to Joseph Code v. Montgomery. Are Petitioner's 6th and 14th Amendment Rights to due process being violated denying claims based on assumption and not facts?

Question Two: Is it legal or illegal according to the United States Constitution to sentence someone as a habitual offender without reasoning or factual findings written or orally on the record. Other than the required (2) prior felonies; the last being within (5) years of charged offense?

Question Three: When all evidence is purely circumstantial one has been identified. How can the crime be proved beyond a reasonable doubt or the conviction be upheld?

Question Four: If the client presents (trial) counsel with alibi, alibi witnesses but trial counsel makes no effort to investigate or call witnesses during trial. Is it in accordance with the 6th Amendment and within the wide range of strategic judgment given to attorney's to advise his client not to testify without presenting his clients version of events or alibi witnesses?

Whether Petitioner's 6th and 14th Amendment rights to due process are being violated by denying claims based on assumption and not facts