THE EVIDENCE PRESENTED AT TRIAL WAS INSUF-
FICIENT TO SUSTAIN MR. OZIER'S CONVICTION
FOR ARMED ROBBERY AND BANK ROBBERY.

PETITIONER WAS DENIED HIS RIGHT TO CONFRONTATION WHEN TRIAL ATTORNEY COULD NOT CROSSEXAMINE HIS PAROLE AGENT ABOUT HER MOTIVES,
PREJUDICE OR BIAS SHE MAY HARBOR .IN..IDENTI-
HIM .-.-

PETITIONER'S SIXTH AMENDMENT TO CONFRON-,
TATION WAS VIOLATED WHEN HE WAS DENIED
THE OPPORTUNITY TO CROSS-EXAMINE THE IN-
.. - .- FROMANT AND DETECTIVE STILES WHO -ACCUSED
HIM OF BANK ROBBERY, COUNSEL WAS INEF-
FECTIVE FOR FAILING TO OBJECT.

PETITIONER WAS DENIED HIS SIXTH AMENDMENT
RIGHT TO A FAIR TRIAL WHEN COUNSEL WAS IN-
EFFECTIVE FOR FAILING TO INVESTIGATE AND
CALLING TO TRIAL A EYEWITNESS.

PETITIONER WAS DENIED HIS SIXTH AMENDMENT
RIGHT TO EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE FO TRIAL
COUNSEL WHEN TRIAL COUNSEL FAILED TO CHAL-
LENGE PETITIONER'S ARREST WITHOUT PROB-
ABLE CAUSE, CREATING A RADICAL DEFECTREN-
DERING THE PROCEEDING VOID AND APPELLATE
COUNSEL FOR FAILING TO RAISE ISSUE ON DI-

Was the evidence sufficient to sustain Mr. Ozier's conviction for armed robbery and bank robbery?