Whether a state habeas court has a constitutional obligation to adjudicate an ineffective assistance of counsel claim based on a cumulative review of all asserted errors and omissions, and thereby evaluate whether the defendant's right to a fair and adversarial trial was violated

No question identified. : Z | Question g Presented # |. Onan TneCfecdive Assistance cf Counsel Claim, Ishereia mmulbiple grounds are alleged_and.well plead, does Ithe State Habeas court havea t1¢ Constitutional lobligedion te adjudicate the claim tossed upon.a Cumulative | Review of all assected errors andomissinns, and thecelby e. eqate Pres ice_Caused_by said co ods, to fick, la $aicand_adversacial trial was violated 2 Specifically, be Shricklaod v.Wlashinglon, Yolo Us. Gboalle4) ; Evidts face us 282s SatcvhennTesas U8 2 1982); and _their_progeo. eine Heldiogs—and | Ae LOT CTT | language of the Courts decisions, Hata. lowercouct Mus leonduct o Cunnulatine Beviewlbggregate Ptejudiceanalysis | ban Ineffective Assistance of Counsel_claim whereig | re multiple ecrors andomissions Mond specifically briefed. Cumulative Review claina)t | ‘occectly, and Constihshionally adjudicate the grounds of _ — | | Ht. Does 6 State Court of Appeals live the intrinsic G thority tn abneqate a defendants Stlathand [ff | mendment vights on his Fiest Right of Appeal, due fe __ th edeSeadant having a. shte=appoinded public defender, podtheceysummttil elase flea penseobenduy ii | and/oe Amendment this Direct Appeal ? pacifically, > I GOECofk ‘d ver 4, a defenda ots. First Right of A pp. eal t Ts [defendants timely=Gled and proceducilly -porbiziend le oimitcted Petition For Bppeal? | | ; : | ab le of Cowden Mage. Uy | | Nouechinne 0 : | 41E 6 f a prité a fe | emir of Opinions ORDER ~A~ADNOW OF Me LAse 0 GICTOVY 1 | Ans e141 u “ictio“ Nn mé DU ( « . oN O10 SI C100 Pep (SIONS Z ae Y | 2TATEAIN ZiT OF The TAS é. | ‘ 4, AMEN AZ lon L310 10 36 : | I CertiCicate 4B use $I14> + Rule 24 [diy Cd” + ri Oped A. | b Od. Aéinutd Khenegcriing @n pan l CO OU RDER Meron to PPress. : lp coated rot Hope D af Appeal b LQUDS Qo le SECOLLING 2 Nerrecr 2 Assistance 6 OUNSE [3 Le Pease Pelion For Appeal Direct Appeal ORDER 20 A Oe a 7) Bs sok y ly «ORDER: el 13495 “ociginal” habes 5 0 ° | * Ruthorite £ Ary ment of TAC grounds ° 343540 a | % . | KS A.tt.oy Rope Dicect Appeal: Petifion 4 ORDERS Aa | XN Ang XALb 2k | efeo ; -|e ant LAOS O _Autho mn fae Kc i ( ie AS¢. 5 (2 ay + 3aB IS¢_ 3295: ad and(b\ » $3242 . | fo. . ' ° . A) OG STATS OOSTATUNON <_ | ¥th Amend men | Fou benth Amend mén |: hind SJaASHINg TON alo U alaB (19 () . IF rcs LC eu oY Rn 2) : D IK Mmel man ve Mp a | 2 8 6 home On OULS/aNG oF qe; B | ( ll Marking Ruan, 132 € 6¢ ( sola . A 6 g . D | lp OL (YA QING S 4 a Ylo glo f ; a, oles v While cue dia (99s) g 2 € qd Lf ALVYIITICY A aA Ione v. Bell S56 Us 449 (2009) pe Re o US g 2004 24 | ates a OOUS 34 q4l d ‘ TH Gnd : ACH SON > A LA 04 2004 : ie one Racnes 3 ly ‘ qe ag Mathews: ACOCAE 5 g As q q 0 Ollecmstronn v. Manzo. Po ussds (I9bs) . cm DNA Manzo 280 US § lo (6) G : i maka YD 3S A LA i 2 im) Ir OCeis Vv. a ppy ol US B 2 31 Io 2 Abeahamson, 507 US lol4 (149 I omboonwes D0 ieqiaia. Codes and Gatutes ¢ | Auton Ma gan, aos SE dg BD (ig74 Laos is Vv Smuth [30 SE ad 4s (9b : | Yopire _ Johnson, 194 EF 3d. Bo (SH Cir 1949 ra le brecht vi Horn 200b US App. Lexis 28854 (3c Cie ay I pllerted Fed. Hop. Cases Various Civeui _ 7 lL puche Angelone Abs F 34. |'1a th Cie, Apes d Laine ‘ommonwlea th, 579 SE dAd_b& A. Apo. 200 3g | Shao Shoo 18 SE da 43 14% : _ 132 | Pe | Pt | VL) * ° ~ aot . : re OY) of ODb1LO 15> 40d Orde | ] 1 Ad 0 the Ci n O of LOUdo n_ Count. ried. { { ' \ lo. i Ad| 2 Motion Irn Recuse. GRA ED Ou Abid Hahed i ! Tee inn aRAN in a + dismissed in pa ORDER ebcuarn | i : | ; a . "| . ; , dd Brady claim: Napu Alin. a B -UMtiusative Keylel/ : I claim 2e Hynoendix 4 i i : ] : . ; : In é GS 2 Ob the © ourt o pOUdouUn County tiled al ! la AO Motion To Recuse. GRANTED Ocimber Ib, do foto | bonend y M \ | . q 3 .0l-( Jcit o¢ Habeas Corpus Fetiton pnal | | A an » i loenee ot March |, dollo Demes aim Tt + Claim TX: and! i | 0 . . ee . fe 4° Gim X “Iaim Tr“ passed en latithout adiudication hfe Aependix A. | iS é_ Supreme. Cou (2) aginta 2nCUae Aole d p iy . 7 it i \