1S 0 (§LiMiNal defendant Constftutfonaly entitle to a Fate Trial From ow Partial Sudae WHO TS NOT CORRUET to Preside and Cule aver his Trial Court Prosn: lke tal tour tht hos lee deere, concur

Q)TS a State Trial Cour as een deemed Cortue Ts CONSttubionaly entitle to o PresumPtion of Correciness $

3) Does a Criminal deferidanst havea fundamental constittut- tonal iat ond a \ilbect9 intrest to a Fore Proceed ind in the State /trial court 2

4) Does on indigent criminal defendant have o const Hubtoval CidhT to a meaningful Arceck aP eal in a State aPPellate Court 2

5) Js ON INdISeNT Ceirinal deFendantt Const tutional eNtitled to Know Who his Counsel 15 on dftect affeal » or IF hes beeing Tepresented on Airect aPPedl ly Counsel at all 2

() Hos an indigent Cf defendant beer darted bis sixth Amendment Constitutional ciaht to eFFective asses tance. OF Counsel on Arieck aPPeal » {Fa state aePorntted atte Counsel Foils To NOTIEY the defendant That Counsel has been arrontted oy the trial Court to ceéreserst the deferdantt ON direct aePeal > oe

7) Has an nga cieminal dendant been dened his Sasth amend Ment Constitu tonal Cant to effective 05575 tonce. of Counse| ON Atreck at eal TF Counsel Cfles an Inddeauate rel toa State afpellate court on behalf of the defendant and Never NOTEELES o¢ allow the defendant to even view the brier _ That 15 uP For feview 3 rc

8) Has 0 CCirrfiial defendant beer denied hts Sixth amendment Constitutional cfaht to effective assistance of Counsel ON Aicect aPCealr r€ With out NO eFendanT Akointed areellate Counse| ae 1554S IN te areellont Court ont belnal€ of the deferdont that were not, Preserved For ei and were there-fore warved For Ceview in the affellate Court 6

A On (decal habeas softs (eyiew 15 ede ishcet cant) "a Constitutionals (eLorced to "Look through" on ONEKPlai Stake Courts decision, to the last States Courts decision thet Provides o relevant tational when deciding i€ the aeFendarts claims are Proceducally barred, From Ceview on Wis 2454 Federal habeas Corfus writ 2

lOVON Federal habeas Coceus Ceview 150 Ceiminal deFardant's Cloris Proceducal barred if the last State court that €cOvided O Celevant Cattonal decision did not Clearly and . CKP(e5STY CeIY ON waiver 05 Ffounds For fedectiNg ANY asPect oF the defendant's chains, which he

Whether a criminal defendant is constitutionally entitled to a fair trial from an impartial judge who is not corrupt to preside and rule over his trial court proceedings