Whether the State Court failed to advise petitioner of his 6th Amendment right to counsel, inquire into petitioner's desire for counsel, and inquire into petitioner's ability to procure counsel before appointing counsel

QUESTION(S) PRESENTED , Nulhen Peltioner appeared in Cou for initial ecaignment Without Loonsel. Whether the Stabe Courk isles (equirect lay ke U.S. Conatitubion ok, und th Amendments to advise petikioner of Wa Cigint Yo Lounsels to rwvikobe an inquiry Wis Pekkioners desice Loc ne aid oF Consel, to inquice wito Abe alsility of petikioner to Procure Counsel: or inquire if petkoner woatd accep' a Couk appoinked attomey as his Ceptesen kakiue before Kppoinkng Leunsel bo Cepiesent Petitioner af Soi DWhethec the fralure of {he Stabe Cook te dio So Was a Violation of Bettioners Sat amendment Secuced avionomy Constituting G Sheochocal eccoc Wiican fequices Ge NeW deialt >\valaen the Shele Courk appointed an ahorney \o fepresent pe hiner without Wa advising eXkoner of WS Lights \o Counsel ingpicing Anke perrhonecs clesite Soc Yne ex af Counsel nguiciag lato she ability of Gelikiorer to Prococe Cooneki oc wQuiciag if oedtione? wccecrS Ye, cappgiatenent of Counsel GS nis Cepresentwe \dhe\lade Ye uppoiakmer’ of Seid Counsel Violated Petikioners Sith amendment Ciaiot ko Chunsel andlor tne An Amendment, Ave Plocess af Vass do ne_U.5. Constkokion of * a . Right be alatcan Counsel of aton Chinasina: andlor, “Right bo Self: Representation andlor, “\ Right ko Ptesentc O defense and/or, Te nok have & \aayer Yarusk vpont VTo nok have & lawyer Vneu po Us Whethec Me Culore of a Stote Covet bo advise peli\oner ok Whe bth Amendment Cig to Counsel Presents a Substantial Violation of a Constitutional Caght ia veapecks Le 1B VSL. Seckiany 2253 OC)