ONE: Was Defendant's 6th Amend. right to Effective Counsel violated when 1st chair appointed counsel testified at W.R.A.P. 21 hearing for new trial that "it was not part of trial strategy" and "he had no excuse by failing to object" to late evidence introduction & prosecutorial misconduct that violated all court mandated "Discovery & Criminal Case Management Orders"; when in the "last trial day & 12th hour", the D.A. introduced multiple unknown & damaging recorded evidences that both counsels testified 'changed the trial outcome'? And further, when 2nd chair counsel testified she "was assigned the case too late to come up to speed", "was not a 50/50% responsible counsel", "did not review discovery evidence", & "told 1st chair counsel to assign her only specific tasks", yet 1st counsel allowed her to continue into trial anyway?

TWO: Did State Defender violate Defendant's Const. rights by refusing to replace assigned counsel; after Defendant wrote her 1 year before trial that assigned counsel committed unethical misconduct & stated 'Insurmountable Conflicts of Interests' by verbalizing his desire not to defend him, refusing to review his submitted evidence complaining it was "too much", complaining he was "assigned too many cases and didn't have time", refused to obtain - investigate or bring to trial known police reports on an assailant proving his previous attacks on Defendant (causing him to defend his life in the last one), refused to pursue any suggested strategy, and stated contempt for Defendant & his case? While further at the same general time; her own case before WY Supreme Court provided her with relief from her complaints that excessive workloads were preventing her from assigning "competent, diligent & conflict free counsels": resulting in "unethical representation" & "jeopardizing client's const. right to effective assistance of counsel"?

Was Defendant's 5th Amend. Constitutional right and desire to participate in his own Appeal/ 'Due Process', violated when the Court denied his "Motion for Permission to file Pro Se Supplemental Brief", despite Motion establishing indisputable fact it was necessary due to Defendant being effectively and completely involuntary isolated from any communication with his appointed Counsel, and all legal resources for months on end before Counsel filed his 'Brief of Appellant'? Further that Brief 'established isolation was due to a historic combination of prison "defense destroying 100% Covid lock-downs", and the Public Defender's Office "slashing Counsel's working office hours by over 75%" (to less than 10 'reachable' hrs./wk.), which Defendant presented resulted in destroying any reasonable chance for his appeal's success?

THREE: Did 'Structural Error', 'Cumulative Error' and / or 'Totality of Cumulative Error Effect' take place to a sufficient degree to "Prejudice the Defense" or reach the minimum standard; that a "Reasonable Probability" existed that "Confidence in the Trial Verdict was Undermined": when Defendant presented in appeals that his numerous Constitutional 2nd, 5th and 6th Amendment rights were removed from him and violated - thus denying him a fair trial; and further that the Court(s) erred by denying the Defendant's Appeals for a new trial or overturning his conviction by failing to apply known law impartially, violating his Constitutional rights?

Was Defendant's 6th Amend. right to Effective Counsel violated?