(1), He was not given a fair Fitness Evaluation Nor Hearing, Due Process Right, U.S. Constitution, Amendment, 14th, ILL. Const. ( 1970 ) Art; 1 § 2; detailed in Issue #1,( CE.378-85 ).

(2) ,The People failed to Disclose Evidence, 5th, and 14th, amendment of Illinois and federal constitution, duerprocess clause. Detailed in Issue #2, ( CI.385-91 ).

(3),ills Trial Counsel was ineffective because of a Conflict Of Interest between [ petitioner ] and his Defense Attorney ", USCA Constitutional amendment 6th. Detailed in Issue #3, ( Cl.391-94 ).

(4), His Counsel was ineffective for failing to impeach Destiny Johnson and Shirley Pearson, violation of the Due process clause under the 14th, amendment of the united states and the 5th, amendment of the illinois constitution and the 6th, amendment of the illinois constitution. Detailed in Issue #3, ( CE.391-402 ).

(5), He was Actually innocent, under both the federal and illinois constitution, u.s.const; amend; 8, VI, XIV, ILL. const; art; 1 § 8. Detailed in Issue #4, ( CI.402-12 ).

(65), Trial counsel was ineffective for failing to call Alibi Witness and Eye-Witness'es, Die process clause is the 5th, and 14th, amendment to the U.S. constitution. Detailed in Issue #5a, ( CE.-412-23 ).

(7),petitioner was Insane at the time of the misconstrued allegation made and at his Fitness Evaluation Hearing, the 5th, amendment of the illinois and united states constitution. Detailed in Issue #1, and #6a, ( CE.423-30 ).

(8), That the Offense Of Predatory Criminal Sexual Assault was invalid, the 5th, and 14th, amendment of the united states constitution, retailed in Issue #7, ( d.439-43 ).

(9),That the Petitioner Due process Rights was violated. Due Process clause is the 5th and 14th., amendment to the U.S. constitution, retailed in issue #8, ( ci.439-43 ).

(10), Post-Conviction Counsel Ms.Elizabeth Ribbeck, prove Ineffective for not shaping petitioners ocmplaint into ' Appropriate Legal Ftrm ', and causing an ' Extrane And tragic ' lcrg delay error, the 6th, ansnchent of the illinois constitution, retailed in Issue #9, ( St.Br.41, citing C,148 ), ( CP.Br. 22-21 ),and ( St.Br.35 ).

Whether the petitioner's constitutional rights were violated due to lack of a fair fitness evaluation, failure to disclose evidence, ineffective assistance of counsel, and actual innocence claims