Ineffective-assistance-of-counsel

QUESTION(S) PRESENTED 1) When the Appointed Counsel on Direct appeal is a thorn to the perfection of that appeal and falls below the standard of Strickland vs. Washington (1984) 466 U 668, 692, Was the Defendant herein Prejudice by counsel’s Failure to raise the Appellant’s Plethora of Arguable Issues that the Appellant himself had written out and filed on his “NOTICE OF APPEAL” Form CR-120 to which his “unknown appointed counsel” had received during those eritical stages of the appeal process to bring to the attention of the court which counsel did not!!! Was the defendant prejudice by counsel’s failure to do so??? Because it’s as if, counsel was absent from the most ¢ritical stages of the appellate proceedings for the defendant in not arquing those issues in his defense. See U.S. vs. Cronic (1984) 466 US 648, was the appellant denied more than just his Due Process & Equal Protection as guaranteed under the 6" and 14” Amendment??? 2) Once a defendant files a 1382 PC Motion to Dismiss while in custody after Not getting any response back from the District Attorney’s Office to the prior filed 1381 PC Motion Demand for Trial and since the Prison officials signed & dated the back of the 1382 Motion envelope for mailing and the motion is received by both the District Attorney’s office & the Master Calendar Supervising Judge of the Courthouse where the case is pending out of as well, “/s the Defendant entitled to the relief sought from the 1382 Motion even after the District Attorney’s Office pulls the Defendant out to court from Prison to answer to the pending charges, but after the 90days has lapse and completely after the time had long expired for the State Officials to respond???” 3) Was the Defendant Prejudice by the fact that the State of California Denied the Defendant his rights under the Equal Protection and Due Process Laws of both the Federal and State Constitutions when Judge Jeffrey G. Bennett refused to dismiss the case against the defendant when the District Attorney admitted on the record that they /“did not”] get the defendant out of custody & into court in time to prosecute the case prior to receiving the timely filed §1382 Motion & long after receiving the §1381 4) Did the State of California Violate the Federal and State Rights of the defendant when it re-filed the very same criminal charge §532(a) for a second (2"°) time on August 26", 2016 after it had already been dismissed two (2) yrs subsequent to the time of expiration for the Statute of Limitations had already ran out on December 19", 2007even though the alleged crime was on December 19", 2004 and where the defendant has never been absence from the State of California pending his trial any dates??? Was this re-filed action a Violation of Due Process and Prejudicial??? 5) Is a Plea Bargain Agreement in essence a contract between the defendant and the prosecutor on behalf of the State??? (2) And if so, can the defendant be relieved from the restraints of the agreement when the Statute of Limitations is Jurisdictional in nature, and where the court had lacked jurisdiction to prosecute the matter??? And, (3) Can a defendant be forced and bound to the plea agreement where the Statute of Limitation is/was No! Longer in existence after three (3) years?? See Cal. Pen. Code §§800-802 and §804; Statute of Limitations (1935) 23 Cal. L. Rev. at pp 525-527; In re Harris (1993) 5 C. 4" 813, HN 11; People vs. Chapman (1975) 47 CA 3d 597; People vs. Hoffman (1933) 132 CA 60; People vs. Lynch (2010) 182 CA 4" 1262; People vs. Sup. Ct. (Meeks) (1991) 1 C. 4" 56, 66 HN 5; United States vs. Williams (1951) 341 US 58, 68; In re Albert B. Demillo (1975) 14 C. 3d 598; People vs. Miller (1859) 12 Cal. 291; People vs. Picetti (1899) 124 Cal. 361; Ex parte Vice (1901) 5 Cal. 153; People vs. McGee (1934) 1 Cal. 2d 611; People vs. Rose (1972) 28 CA 3d 414; People vs. Morgan (1977) 75 CA 3d 32; People vs. Chadd (1981) 28 3d 739; People vs. Brice (1988) 206 CA 3d 111; People vs. Angel