Did the Pennsylvania courts err in denying collateral relief where prior counsel was ineffective for failing to consult fully with the petitioner, Darryl Allen, about taking an appeal, and in failing to preserve all post-sentence and appellate rights absent a knowing, intelligent, and voluntary waiver of those rights? More specifically, does the "knowing, intelligent, and voluntary" language of Garza v. Idaho, 139 S. Ct. 738, 745 n.6 (2019), govern the consultation requirement of Roe v. Flores-Ortega, 528 U.S. 470 (2000)?

Did the Pennsylvania courts err in denying collateral relief where prior counsel was ineffective for failing to consult fully with the petitioner, Darryl Allen, about taking an appeal, and in failing to preserve all post-sentence and appellate rights absent a knowing, intelligent, and voluntary waiver of those rights?