Whether the state's alleged ineffective counsel resulted in a denial of due process and equal protection

QUESTION(S) PRESENTED alk Trikteo @ | Bed the Stele ereuide purperted represertebhtien resulting tn Aress Mmetfeastive counsel 2 Sick the Stele vwielate the U.S. Constch ben's Pa, Arvendmenck Cduwe precess and equoat protectib ny) +e coe represeny Wimsel€ when the court asserted T eoutd nok Co represent vaysel€ per Com.v. Rede (BILABd $4,566 when me ts clear ther Rusz dees Rot epercte. ond ds superseded NINN the KIN Amendment due te Knes€eckwe counsel? Ord Ake stebe circumvent Gideon ws. Weainwnalr , STZ V.5. 335, BS S.C NAL, AL EA. 2d 199 (1463) When ~the state Mrsek€ made a re Teceqnizing a Cause of acter predated upen undemfandona, ot Public Defender o€Gres under Kuen vy. Luzeme County , 637 Pa. 33,146 ABA US Beil lett the Publ, Defenders o€tice ‘rea palale of complying With Giceon , Creating systematic construc“Ae denrmal of elective counsel On contravention of the. GEA Ded +he terol Court err by nok having NE Preseny dn Coil Court oe formay Charge me WA Ones and court € ; . atler the recerd shaus TL was brought ste etl court? Dod the stoke furnish effective represembobion when trol ottomey Croudulerty acted weethtcally and conduct related Chesely Lo qaovernmental Conduct whieh YS Vhewed as Conduck of the stoke Mee tt? , Ded the strate C¥eumyernt rm mqht ~o a speedy te | OS & mertker of Constiracttene| law tn add oshnan so the Rule 600 Vrolet one