I. Did the Pennsylvania Supreme Court decision provide the necessary warrant of authority to Subsume the Constitutional Writ of Habeas Corpus ad sobticiemdum within the PCRA?

2. Whether lack of statutory authorization in a state court of record disable discretion, once challenged, requiring sanction and/or deterrent for courts to proceed, notwithstanding?

3. Whether the right of self-representation in Pennsylvania require Substantive and procedural due process protections enforceable under Article 1, § 9, of the Pennsylvania Constitution as well as the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution?

4. Whether where challenges to the statutory authorization to impose a particular Sentence is lacking in a State court, it has discretion to provide its own authorization?

5. Whether Brady violations or newly and/or after discovered evidence and facts, or any other discovery issue, in Pennsylvania, can be deemed Waived if discovery materials refused pre-trial, at trial or post-trial?

6. Did the State violate Due Process and Equal Protection when it refused the right of direct appeal and timely requested trial transcripts by applying ex STRICT compliance rule to their format?

7. Whether the State's discretion to decline or refuse to provide comprehensive analysis on the merits of the claim violate State and Federal constitutional provisions?

8. Did the State's supervisory powers disable its discretion under review and decide matters in a definitive and comprehensive manner?

9. Did the State exercise discretion NOT to review whether claim satisfy the collateral order three-part test requirement?

10. Did the State violate Constitutional provisions when it held a deficient waiver of counsel colloquy unless when it refused to mention or address it in an overtly judicially raised decision?

11. Did the Pennsylvania Supreme Court decision provide the necessary warrant of authority to subsume the Constitutional Writ of Habeas Corpus within the PCRA?

issue being raised