Victor Rosales v. Bobby Lumpkin, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division
1. DOES A TEXAS PRISONER HAVE A CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO APPOINTMENT OF EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL IN COLLATERAL PROCEEDINGS WHICH PROVIDE THE ONLY MEANINGFUL OPPORTUNITY TO RAISE CLAIM(s) OF INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF TRIAL COUNSEL AS SUCH CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT IS AFFORDED TO INDIGENT PRISONERS FILING A DIRECT APPEAL, PURSUANT TO THE HOLDINGS OF DOUGLAS V. CALIFORNIA, 83 S.Ct. 814 (1963); and EVITTS V. LUCEY, 105 S.Ct. 830 (1985)?
2. DID THE FIFTH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS DECISION TO DENY ROSALES' REQUEST FOR ISSUANCE OF A CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY CONFLICT WITH THE HOLDINGS OF BAREFOOT V. ESTELLE, 463 U.S. 893 (1983); MILLER-EL V. COCKRELL, 537 U.S. 338 (2003); and FLIEGER V. DELO, 16 F.3d 883 (8th Cir. 1994)?
3. DID THE FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT'S DECISION TO DENY MR. ROSALES REQUEST FOR AN EVIDENTIARY HEARING CONFLICT WITH THE HOLDINGS OF TOWNSEND V. SAIN, 372 U.S. 293 (1963); AND KEENEY V. TAMAYO-REYES, 504 U.S. 1, 5 (1992), WHEN MR. ROSALES, DUE TO HIS INDIGENT STATUS, AND THE COURT'S FAILURE TO APPOINT COUNSEL, PROVIDED THE COURT WITH THE ONLY EVIDENCE (an internet Blog) HE COULD OBTAIN TO SUBSTANTIATE HIS CLAIM?
Does a Texas prisoner have a constitutional right to appointment of effective assistance of counsel in collateral proceedings