1. In the fi rst pl ace, was Peti tioner deni ed hi s Sixth Amendment
right to the effecti ve assi stance of counsel when hi s court-appoi nted
trial attorney fai led to advi se hi m that he had no defense to the
ADW charge or the sentenci ng enhancements and was certai n to be
found gui lty of those charges and to be sentenced to a l onger term
than the prosecuti on was offeri ng, and, therefore, had no rati onal
choice but to accept the offer, but, i nstead, advi sed hi m that they
were goi ng to beat the case?

2. Was Peti tioner deni ed hi s Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment
rights to due process and eq ual protecti on when, on habeas corpus
in the C aliforni a Court of Appeal and Supreme C ourt, those courts
failed to fol low C aliforni a Supreme C ourt deci sional law (see, e.g.,
Peopl e v. Duval l, 9 C al.4th 464, 474-475 (1995); Peopl e v. Pope, 23
Cal.3d 412, 426 (1979)), whi ch req uires the courts, when a peti tioner
alleges facts whi ch make out a pri ma faci e case of an unl awful
convi ction, to i ssue an order to show case, and i f those factual
allegati ons are contested, to conduct an evi denti ary heari ng in order
to resol ve them?

3. Were the summary deni als of Peti tioner's state-court habeas
petitions – without i ssuance of an order to show cause, an
evidenti ary heari ng, and a statement of reasons – per se
unreasonabl e and, therefore, not enti tled to deference on habeas
corpus i n the federal courts under 28 U.S.C . § 2254 (d)(2) because
those state courts resol ved factual issues and Peti tioner's credi bility
without affordi ng hi m an evi denti ary heari ng, as hel d in Nunes v.
Muel ler, 350 F.3d 1045, 1054 (9th Cir. 2003) and other deci sions of the
Ninth C ircuit Court of Appeal s?

4. Was Peti tioner deni ed hi s Fifth Amendment ri ght to due
process when, on habeas corpus i n the Uni ted States Di strict Court,
the court i ssued an order to show cause, and Peti tioner made the
showi ng stated i n Paragraph E bel ow (p. v) – speci fically that hi s
attorney fai led to gi ve hi m competent advi ce to accept the
prosecuti on's offer of a pl ea bargai n and that, wi th such advi ce, he
woul d have accepted i t – but the court not onl y deni ed an
evidenti ary heari ng to determi ne the truth of the factual showi ng
and the credi bility of Peti tioner, as req uired by Ni nth C ircuit law
(e.g. Nunes v. Muel

Ineffective-assistance-of-counsel