I.) WHETHER SHINN V RAMIREZ 'S HOLDING
PETITIONER "AT FAULT " FOR POST
CONVICTION COUNSEL 'S APPELLATE
ERRORS GIVE INDIGENT POST-CONVICTION
APPELLANTS AUTONOMY OVER THE APPEAL
PROVIDING THEM OPTIONS TO DISMISS
APPELLATE COUNSEL, RETAIN NEW
COUNSEL, OR BE PRO SE IF FEDERAL ISSUES
OF INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE ARE NOT
PROPERLY BEING PRESENTED BY COUNSEL
ON APPEAL, AND IF SO, DID THE TENN.
COURT OF CRIM. APP. AND SUP. CT. OF
TENN. 'S DENIAL OF INDIGENT PETITIONER 'S
MOTION TO REPLACE POST-CONVICTION
COUNSEL, RETAIN NEW COUNSEL, OR
PROCEED PRO SE VIOLATE THE DUE
PROCESS AND EQUAL PROCTECTION
CLAUSES OF THE XIVTH AMENDMENT
UNDER GRIFFIN V ILLINOIS AND ROSS V
MOFFITT?

II.) WHETHER PETITIONER 'S OBJECTION IN HIS
MOTION TO REPLACE COUNSEL, RETAIN
NEW COUNSEL OR PROCEED PRO SE
PROVIDING EVIDENCE OF A CONFLICT OF
INTEREST WITH APPELLATE COUNSEL GAVE
PETITIONER THE XIVTH AMENDMENT DUE
PROCESS AND EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSE
RIGHTS HAVE HIM REMOVED DUE TO THAT
CONFLICE OF INTEREST, AND IF SO, DID
TENNESSEE APPELLATE COURTS ERR IN
DENYING PETITIONER 'S MOTION?

Whether Shinn v. Ramirez's holding petitioner 'at fault' for postconviction counsel's appellate errors gives indigent post-conviction appellants autonomy over the appeal