Whether the petitioner's right to effective assistance of counsel in his first direct appeal of right was violated when counsel refused to brief his Fourth Amendment claim

QUESTION(S) PRESENTED \. WAS THE PETITIONER'S RIGHT TO AFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE oF COUNSEL IN HIS FIRST DIAECT RRPERL OF RIGHT VIOLATED WHEN COUNSEL REFUSED Td BRIEF HIS FOURTH AMENDMENT Sle? 2. 13 A WARRANTLESS SEARCH OF A PADBRTIONERS PREMISES IN VIOLATION OF STATE LAW SINVWTES PER SE. UNREASONABLE ¢ 3. WHERE PETITIONER WAS CONUICTED AND SENTENLED FOR POssESsioN oF A CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE WAS HIS CUASEQUENT CONVICTION OF THE SAME INCIOENT OF MosséSsioN AE THE SAME suastANcs PROHIBITED RY U.S. CONSTUTOTION AMENDMENTS “ent a 4. WHERE PETITIONER WAS REINDICTED FOR POSSESSION GF A CONTROLLED SuRSTANCG ‘FoR WHICH HE WAS SERVING A PRISON SENTENCES, AND HE PLE GUI/TY BuT RESERVED His Riatr 1 APPEAL WNTERLocUTORN ORDER. O10 DISMISSAL OF HIS AOPEAL On GPOUNDS OF COLLATERAL ESTONEL VIDLATE. THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE OF U.S. CONSTITUTION AMENDMenrs XIV. 2 5. If THE ANSWER TD GuEsTion “Y AMoYe 15 NO, WAS PENTIONER DEMien EFFECTIVE FESISTARCE GF COUNSEL 7