In Persuasive Authority Leading Case on Point Hamilton V. Alabama 368 U,S.52,(1961). The Supreme Court of the United States Reversed. In an opinion by Douglas, J., expressing the unanimous view of this Court, it was held that, since arraignment is a Critical Stage in a criminal proceeding under Alabama Law, an accused in a criminal case in an Alabama State Court is entitled as a matter of Federal Constitutional Law, to counsel at his arraignment, and that, if he is without counsel at the arraignment, he may obtain relief from his conviction without showing that he suffered disadvantage by such denial.

Right to counsel, appellant asserts that his conviction, in the interest of justice should be reversed because he was denied counsel for a plurality of days totaling over 102 days after my arrest, which said denial thus violated Pennsylvania Rule of Criminal Procedure 122(A), and the right to counsel and Procedural Due Process under, respectively, the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution incorporated by the state in the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

The subsequent delay in appointment of counsel prejudiced appellant because said delay caused appellant to be tried in the wrong venue, due to spoliation of the evidence, and further violated Pennsylvania Rule of Criminal Procedure 540(G)(1)(a), which requires a preliminary hearing to be held not more than (10) days after the preliminary Arraignment unless the time is expanded for cause shown. HOWEVER, this court can construe the timing of appellant's preliminary hearing under Pa.R.Crim.P.540(G)(1)(a) , was violated possible because appellant was not represented by counsel. The State of Pennsylvania, either willfully or inadvertently, did not comply to there rules, and in doing so, the State of Pennsylvania, has violated this appellant's Procedural Due Process of Law, in toto.

Does the substantive holding in Missouri v. Frye, 566 U.S.(2012), that the Constitution guarantee of a Fair Trial Extends to PreTrial Actions, apply on collateral review to Petitioner?

1A) Should the substantial holding in Hamilton V. Alabama, Does the denial of Counsel at Sentencing, apply on collateral review to Petitioner?

(2). Does the Denial of Counsel at Four Phases of Criminal Procedure/Pretrial Stages, apply on collateral review to petitioner?

(3). Does the act of 18 U.S.C.§3142(f ), apply on collateral review to Petit?

Right to counsel