Whether the DC Court of Appeals' decision conflicts with Supreme Court precedent on counsel's obligations to adequately counsel client regarding guilty pleas

QUESTIONS PRESENTED FOR REVIEW Whether the DC Court of Appeals’ decision directly conflicts with and seriously undermines controlling authority of the Supreme Court on counsel’s fundamental obligations to adequately counsel his client regarding guilty pleas, a process which the Supreme Court has held is a “critical stage” of the proceedings. See, Lafler v. Cooper, 132 S.Ct. 1376 (2012); Missouri v. Frye, 132 $.Ct. 1399 (2012), where the DCCA generally sanctions an attorney’s abandonment of all further efforts to counsel his client and negotiate a plea agreement as long as the attorney makes one unsuccessful attempt, regardless whether, as in the present case, ° the defendant is young, virtually uneducated! and does not speak English; ° the attorney who communicated the plea offer does not speak Spanish; . the defendant faces numerous, serious felonies including two counts of first degree felony murder while armed with aggravating circumstances; ° the government’s case against him is overwhelming; ° two cooperating co-defendants admitted to police that although the defendant participated in a burglary and robbery, it was they—not the defendant—who fatally stabbed the decedents; ° there is a 10-month lag between the only attempt at plea negotiations and the trial date; and ° the potential sentence if convicted after trial is in excess of 100 years. ‘Petitioner received a 7" grade education in El Salvador, which faces “major challenges in education” including “poor education quality, resulting in a growing number of youth leaving school without basic skills mastery; [and] limited access and inequity for disadvantaged groups such as. . . urban and rural poor, and minorities. . .” i