 the following eight claims: I. Defendant was denied his right to counsel of choice in violation of the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. II. Defendant was denied due process of law in violation of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution when the trial judge instructed the jury that a lawful arrest was made with respect to the charge of resisting and obstructing a police officer. III. Defendant's conviction for resisting and obstructing a police officer is invalid where there is insufficient evidence that the officer was effecting a lawful arrest. IV. Defendant was denied due process in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution when his sentence was based in large part on inaccurate information. V. Defendant was denied due process and a full and fair opportunity to litigate his Fourth Amendment claim of unlawful seizure in violation of the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution when the Michigan Court of Appeals applied the incorrect standard of review to the trial court's fact finding with regard to 