(1). IS GUILTY PLEA CONSTITUTIONALLY INFIRM BASED ON INADEQUATE AND DEFECTIVE BOYKIN COLLOQUY RECORD

(2). IS GUILTY PLEA CONSTITUTIONALLY INFIRM INTELLIGENT, INVOLUNTARY DUE TO INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL

(3). WAS DEFENDANT DENIED DUE PROCESS OF THE LAW

(4). WAS DEFENDANT DENIED EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL

(5). WAS THE USE COUNSEL ABLE TO PLEAD GUILTY REASONABLE AND COMPETENT AND WITHIN THE RANGE OF COMPETENCE DEMANDED OF ATTORNEY IN CRIMINAL CASES

(6). IS GUILTY PLEA INFORM, UNINTELLIGENT, INVOLUNTARY NOT A CONSCIOUS CHOICE DUE TO DEFENSE COUNSEL FAILED TO DISCLOSE THE VICTIM EXCULPATORY STATEMENTS TO DEFENDANT PRIOR TO ADVISING THE DEFENDANT TO PLEAD GUILTY

(7). IS THERE A SUBSTANTIAL ALLEGATION OF NEW EVIDENCE

(8). DID DEFENSE COUNSEL FAILED TO MAKE SURE GUILTY PLEA WAS INFORMED KNOWING INTELLIGENT VOLUNTARY AND A CONSCIOUS CHOICE

(9). WAS DEFENDANT DENIED RIGHT TO DIRECT APPEAL

Whether the district court erred in dismissing petitioner's habeas corpus petition as untimely under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA) despite petitioner's diligence in pursuing his claims and the existence of extraordinary circumstances that prevented timely filing