Whether a post-trial pre-appeal motion for new trial is a critical stage of state criminal proceedings protected by right-to-counsel

QUESTIONS PRESENTED 1. Whether a post-trial pre-appeal motion for new trial . filed by an indigent prisoner is a critical stage of state criminal proceedings protected by right-to-counsel existing under the Sixth amendment, and (2) May a final trial judgment obtained by the denial of that right provide authority for direct review that finds “evidence of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt” based upon a record showing violation of right-to-counsel at bindover, indictment, arraignment, trial and sentencing. 3. Where prior to indictment in the underlying state case the indigent accused requests permission from the Sixth Federal Circuit to appeal the district court's denial of his request for removal alleging want of bindover hearing and violation of right-to-counsel, and where following his imprisonment in that state case, the record . shows Chief Justice Martin grants the request to appeal and orders the appointment of counsel, yet the prisoner , remains unaware due to circuit clerk's suppression of appointment and subsequent dismissal of the proceedings “for want of prosecution’, THE QUESTIONS PRESENTED ARE: (4) Do rights when . granted by court under the Sixth amendment attach beginning from time order is entered or from time counsel appears, and (5) May that right be severed without a hearing whereby the Sixth Circuit may find the previously suppressed appeal which raised the same questions of subject matter within the same state case underlying the appeal at hand, is now unrelated and without affect to the outcome of decision? 6. May the Sixth Circuit ignore the repeated holdings of this Court, and allow the district court under F.R.C.P. Rule 12 court to dismiss independent claims alleging subject-matter fraud in state criminal proceedings which were initiated without legal process and conducted in the complete absence of counsel where shown at trial the arresting officer admitted fabricating all facts material to probable cause, and may those claims to this day remain unajudicated by any court whereby the respondents may continue to evade determination of factors which either toll or trigger state limitations for bringing a false imprisonment claim, as bright-lined by this Court under Wallace v. Kato, 549 U.S. 384 (2007) ?