I. Court violated Petitioner's right to due process — denied him his right to a fair trial by joining the unrelated cases of aggravated indecent exposure which each capped a second count of indecent exposure by a sexually immature prejudicial.

II. The trial court abused its discretion and denied [Petitioner] his due process rights by admitting evidence of past acts that should not have been admitted.

III. [Petitioner] did not receive the adequate fulfillment of his constitutional rights. [Petitioner] claims that during opening statements, the prosecutor improperly referenced the testimony of a professor and a police officer from 2003 at Kendall College. [Petitioner] asserts that the prosecutor's comments violated his Sixth Amendment right to confront witnesses. [Petitioner] claims that neither the professor nor the police officer testified. [Petitioner] further claims that defense counsel was ineffective for failing to move for a mistrial based on the prosecutor's opening statement. These comments were prejudicial to [Petitioner] and impaired his ability to receive effective assistance of counsel. [Petitioner] further claims that defense counsel was ineffective in requesting a cautionary instruction or assistance of counsel in requesting a cautionary instruction.

IV.

Whether the trial court violated Petitioner's due process rights by joining unrelated cases and improperly admitting prejudicial testimony