Do the Shinn v. Ramirez, 142 S. Ct. 1718, 596 U.S. 1. (2022), and Martinez v. Ryan, line of cases require the State to provide a post-conviction petitioner with minimal due process where (1) the State provides a right to effective post-conviction counsel; (2) the petitioner had counsel during state post-conviction proceedings; but (3) state post-conviction counsel failed to review the relevant evidence or notify the client of exonerating photographs that would have supported the petitioner's original defense of duress and allegations of ineffective assistance of trial counsel?

Do the Shinn v. Ramirez, 142 S. Ct. 1718, 596 U.S.___—(2022), and Martinez v. Ryan line of cases require the State to provide a post-conviction petitioner with minimal due process?