I.

PETITIONER WAS DENIED HIS UNALIENABLE RIGHT OF DUE PROCESS OF LAW WHEN THE MICHIGAN SUPREME COURT FAILED TO RULE ON THE MERITS OF PETITIONER'S APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL; AND THE LOWER STATE COURT RECHARACTERIZED HIS MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL PURSUANT TO MCL 770.1, MSA 28.1098 AS A MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM JUDGMENT PURSUANT TO MCR 6.500, WITHOUT PROVIDING PETITIONER WITH A WRITTEN NOTICE AND WAS IN CONFLICT AND CONTRARY TO THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT PRECEDENT OF CRISINO V. UNITED STATES, 540 U.S. 375; 124 S.CT. 784; 157 L.ED. 2D. 728 (2003) [SEE EXHIBIT (B-1) AND (F-1)] AND FAIN V. KOHLEN DIC SPECIALTY, 354 U.S. 156 (1957)

II.

PETITIONER WAS DENIED HIS UNALIENABLE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT OF DUE PROCESS OF LAW WHEN HE WAS DENIED HIS SIXTH AMENDMENT RIGHT TO EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF APPELLATE COUNSEL DURING PETITIONER'S APPEAL OF RIGHT, CONTRARY TO DUE PROCESS AND EQUAL PROTECTION OF LAW WHEN:

(A) PETITIONER SUNLES WAS DENIED HIS SIXTH AMENDMENT RIGHT TO THE ASSISTANCE AND PRESENCE OF COUNSEL DURING THE MARCH 21, 1968 POLICE INCOMMUNICADO INTERROGATION WHEN PETITIONER WAS COMPELLED TO MAKE SELF-INCRIMINATING STATEMENTS CONTRARY TO HIS FIFTH AMENDMENT RIGHT, AND DEFENSE OF ACTUAL INNOCENCE

(B) PETITIONER'S COUNSEL WAS INEFFECTIVE WHEN HE FAILED TO FILE A MOTION TO SUPPRESS SHOWUP LINEUP POLICE IDENTIFICATION IN THE ABSENCE OF THE PRESENCE AND ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL, WHICH RESTED ON SUGGESTIVE

(C) APPELLATE COUNSEL JAMES A. HATHAWAY WAS INEFFECTIVE WHEN HE FAILED TO RAISE FOR THE FIRST TIME ON APPEAL OF RIGHT, THAT PETITIONER WAS DENIED HIS SIXTH AMENDMENT RIGHT TO THE PRESENCE AND ASSISTANCE OF DEFENSE COUNSEL AT CRITICAL STAGES DURING HIS MARCH 21, 1968 ARRAIGNMENT ON AN ARREST WARRANT, THAT DID NOT EXIST

2. APPELLATE COUNSEL JAMES A. HATHAWAY WAS CONSTITUTIONALLY INEFFECTIVE WHEN HE FAILED TO INVESTIGATE AND REQUEST CRUCIAL PRE-TRIAL RECORDS, SUCH AS CRIMINAL COMPLAINT, ARREST WARRANT, TRANSCRIPTS OF ARRAIGNMENT TO SHOW DETERMINATION OF PROBABLE CAUSE AT A HEARING, RECORD OF POLICE MARCH 21, 1968 SHOWUP IDENTIFICATION CONFRONTATION AND POLICE MIRANDA AND RIGHTS WARNING FORM, AND REQUEST A COPY OF PETITIONER'S EXCULPATORY OR INCULPATORY STATEMENT TO POLICE WITHOUT THE PRESENCE AND ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL.

3. APPELLATE COUNSEL WAS INEFFECTIVE WHEN HE FAILED TO RAISE ON DIRECT APPEAL, THAT TRIAL COUNSEL HARRY PLISKOW WAS INEFFECTIVE AND INCOMPETENT

Whether petitioner was denied his unwaivable constitutional right of due process of law when the Michigan Supreme Court failed to rule on the merits of petitioner's application for leave to appeal