PV-ST-S l Ch hSfb\ £ /^~T (Of Ei^RqR.
Loas de^hSicA fpfw- +o
Pf\\rf KellQCjgj \/«.-Slna^nnAkp 4-C? F* 3d. £03?
teVOCPftibti \)£&h/p <L)l\kJg.h, fHolrlrlgSdy \J*„
Bl-£U)£F f 4^)2 Li-S> 471; -P/\)d. £7ft(p£>/t\ 4II
"]2£ y AA)d ' d £ i\) l £d d4i£. ^ i £j h-h Hz) "£ Ffec+i U Fi
A^sk-farOcf. £>F ^Oivi^el FH- +fi£ re\JdCMr\^k)
h£P>Ni\J£| ,ROd, FH- -4h£, //Oi4i'aI- r^\7l£l0 Collfrtclrftl
proceedingJ a UblR'hcA DF Arbc,SfxAbC(^A)d /
foi3h-h^eA>fK Cl4)f/^n0^/0d/Yl^f^-+; DF +fi£ £i£# ^aIc^+O+ i^/O; flf+.1 <2^. idjOfdhe. Ohio
gQ\K^4j+i^ ;/riflHfturned
p^-bf -//£> fiJCh

Whether the petitioner was denied the right to a revocation hearing under Morrissey v. Brewer and Gagnon v. Scarpelli, and the right to effective assistance of counsel at the revocation hearing and initial collateral review proceedings, in violation of the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments