Does Douglas v. California, 372 U.S. 353 (1963), and its progeny, require a state court to advise an indigent defendant of the procedural rules and time limitations governing claims of ineffective assistance of trial counsel in states that require these claims to be raised in an initial-review collateral proceeding?

Whether the U.S. Appeals Court's order denying Rocha a COA on Ground One based on his failure to exhaust remedies is in conflict with § 2254(b)(1)(A), (c); and O'Sullivan v. Boerckel, 526 U.S. 838 (1999), and whether that conflict is such a departure by a lower court, as to call for an exercise of this Court's supervisory power?

Whether the U.S. Appeals Court's order denying Rocha a COA on Grounds Two-Eight based on his ineffective-assistance claims having no merit is in conflict with Martinez v. Ryan, 566 U.S. 1 (2012), and 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1), (2), and whether that conflict is such a departure by a lower court, as to call for an exercise of this Court's supervisory power?

Does Douglas v. California, 372 U.S. 358 (1968), and its progeny, require a state court to advise an indigent defendant of the procedural rules and time limitations governing claims of ineffective assistance of trial counsel in states that require these claims to be raised in an initial-review collateral proceeding?