WHETHER OL, MWHOCEMT asa Marre of STHTE /a W))
acrval and -acrval/ WMI OCENIT, /MDIgEMT feosE
DekupauT in & STATE Ceimmal Case bio 1S PpkonibiTED
aN ADEOVATE LVRST POSTCONUIC TION counsel, buT wito ts
DE /URE POLLED 7d RAISE Wet lecrivE assistance oF
vein! COUNSE! TA SECOND IN'TICS CoslaTeeal REVIEW)
PEDCEED Ings Por His ptocebukal Defaults 7o be EX forced
VAL -eoeen | COVERT, THE PkoCEDvRA| SCHEME 77AT DE Sacro
beces Dep DaUT 70 Rals—E WEFPFETWE LSSISTANCE of
7rie/ Course! C/AIMS til PoSTEONUICTION PROCEEDINGS
UITHOUT THE WSSISTAVLE OF COMPETENT Counsel LS
WIQDEOUATE AMD DISCRIMMATES LZAINST HS SIKTH
AMEdMEvT Right 70 AN ChecTive Teal aTroRMEey by
fai litg 70 athoen Hil & RASOMLIE OPPORTU Ty 70 EVER
Criellenge His TRA! KTTORMEYS! PEFFRUACE, .

WHETHER aM, IWNOGHT 2S OMATTER of STATE lay,
acTeal aww Jacvva/ MINOCENT, IMDIQENT Pk0 SE
De daUT fd a STATE CRIMINA! CASE WHO Ls pronibirEe
by srare law) Feora raising on DieEecT appeal Any Claie
of Teal CovrT ERROR, bUT WHo Has a SmRTE-law LigHT
70 RAISE SUCH A CIAIM IQ RECONSIDERATION PROCEED 11g y
Hes a feoeeal comsrire7iona RigHT 70 PTWE ASSISTANCE
of COURT LETRINED svaudby 77e/a/ Counse/, avd CovrkT
a PPUwTED appellate Counse/ Spec ty cally wT LES PZT TO
40S TRIA/ CovRT EGRROL CLAIM «

Whether an indigent pro se defendant in a state criminal case who is prohibited by state law from raising any claim of trial court error on direct appeal, but who has a state-law right to raise such a claim in a reconsideration proceeding, has a federal constitutional right to the assistance of court-appointed standby trial counsel and court-appointed appellate counsel specifically with respect to his trial court error claim