1. Whether the 26(B) application for reopening proceeding was adequate and
fundamentally fair in order to determine if appellate counsel was deficient and
prejudicial to the petitioner.

2. Whether the 26(B) application for reopening demonstrated that there is a
genuine issue as to whether the petitioner was deprived of the effective assistance of
counsel on appeal.

3. Whether the petitioner 's showing that appellate counsel 's failure to request
and include the transcript of the amendment to indictment presented a genuine issue
of ineffective assistance.

4. Whether appellate counsel was unconstitutionally ineffective in failing to
raise as plain error the trial court 's failure to fully and completely give the jury all
the relevant instructions as requested and agreed upon.

5. Whether appellate counsel was ineffective for failing to raise as plain
that defense counsel was ineffective for not requesting a limiting instruction to
disregard highly inflammatory material.

6. Whether appellate counsel was unconstitutionally ineffective for failing to
raise as error defense counsel 's representing conflicting interests when stipulating to
an element of the offense charged.

7. Whether counsel on appeal was ineffective for failing to raise as error that
the trial court plainly erred by not instructing the jury on the lesser included offense.

Whether the 26(B) application for reopening proceeding was adequate and fundamentally fair