I respectfully write separately to express somewhat different views from the majority on two issues.
First, relative to the 911 dispatcher’s testimony that the 911 system maintained a “flag” on the defendant’s address that indicated issues of officer safety, the majority relies upon the failure of the “flag” to identify the defendant as the source of the issue as a basis for denying the defendant relief. I believe that, given other evidence in the case, the officer-safety flag substantially implicated the defendant. Consequently, the trial court should have excluded the evidence. On the other hand, the totality of the evidence in the case renders the admission of this evidence harmless, and I would have affirmed the denial of relief on that basis.