Petitioner says that conclusion is unreasonable because the panel of the state appellate court that heard his post-conviction petition said "there is conflicting evidence as to the reason [petitioner] had a bat that night, whether the victim was armed, whether [petitioner and his co-defendant] planned to attack the victim, and who was present at the beating." (Gov't Ex. K, People v. Jackson, No. 1-03-2902 at 6 (Ill.App.Ct. Nov. 23, 2005).) There are two problems with this argument.