Whether the petitioner's constitutional rights were violated when the trial court dismissed his motion for a new trial based on the denial of his right to counsel and his right to access archives/evidence

No question identified. : : Ben ami Beortedy Nee ins bested Now Xi 0) . Nohon OF abieal to the. SUPpeme Court OF THE. _ L Fetitione Cant shonal Riots to Confnterhan NUCL Videted When +he. Nil Court Durmithed Hat Za hiro bya witn% and his Giant +o 7Aechives laAistande._ dk OUNKUL Wab Viderrtd wh Counsel auled to _obyetk tone tine of guahming, . IAs. e+) Tedd iy OuNnSel or Dew ne TD a WK a _ | 2. The Thal: Court foiled to Consider tre Pence & __ Dischorae Ra Siam cur of Over an public Mado __ iahwau'aban allied ofere of Similar import to hig . | Feloniay Aah odVictions_, A violahan ot 40) \Sue woo Tiled with The. Sixth Distr Cowt of Appeal, NL_Lourt did nat add A the £4 o6 requnyed _ arwickons,.weue oxcrsive. and amounted to cular = | Onisual punishment Under the. Caan Amendment te the U5! Condhtesion ee | Echtiner Beatedor is in Click Conblick 2dlang Lie _i rion Ahiwen oilh Fate oma 4 hiovgla Ohrtecd Shek Cour, The _ pee lf Anan ea feori Wl fing re Xrhlawing Qs hee BP Alpes cppearin-shw Caption of hose ons Cot a LVL Al parties do nokappeac inte Caption htty Cam onde eo Pre. Alst cal focus erbe pzading natu Cogk a jedqument isthe Subject this putition is.0 follows | Dave ind bscdba) cho Column Responduat cn Wovdlea) | AR. BATES CL ecae Cah Prosecuting Mfoineg) __ | L rNdeay D AIA, (Ask Pave koy My, Se epi ed St Ul eg Dik Tp ha TABLE OF Cores. TOONS BELOW os nl oT Cansecrircowal AND StataropY Rovrstonb MONE terse p93 _ STATEMENT OFTHE CAGE ose coneocsseeoe pot REASONS Fok Grant THE WET Tassos s00 p95 CONC OST ON pga PEEK State \I Logan (1999), 0 Ohio $t. ad 13626, 140.0 3.373 poe. 13 TF Code Tein dors U5. Dist LExr5 3336 poe [He Nl US hg Me EW ida, 297 U5. 38) pg ___.f fhop eV, locks Fea Ape eg 7 a mo, 6 V. 10 433 15, a \ | epi tone ot a aaa tt 8S —_—— Jiate... i A), NO. Th_D 1 50 |. errr ag ca es ee iridand. (aon AY Ao 25, Ago] 6 | | = Poe Aedent tay Fad aa lence mT . | Murray Vi Corrie, 4 U5, 466 (19%) pe — Aa tg TDS, S053 le 5.Ck aed pp 1 —_— daADY4 _{'Edub obs Cacpaler 2 5, G46) (Sao) pp 1 fq, Daca Ve Mested! Dol Phot Toe 509 U.5,519 vo 8 | Davis Vb agion SMT C5, 613 _9ap.8 _ —_— feo 4 Uh asnnglov ean fe BS eee Wien) yn Vek ‘ehh 5G 5, OG. pay “6 fp Tate!V, Mutton Bo -ohio67 pe tg State \h Jalitan 124. Ohio St 153 ate aio. 634 94a Nad . grap. 9 ___# 2p V Conftet 104 Ohio St 3d 2; Ae0| ~ohio~ pug. 5 ee ae PBC 2 fos. Ca) i KC. OI03./1 (Ala) a a 7 a App, h..26 parte Sl pRC. AAI. 1a (Q(t) pap. 15 __ Mie OC‘; Tital Tiosceipt. Vdume. 4. pull,17,30, 198 and Trial Trap chun 2 pac) riehLgs _ [ARE DANCY of VERITY (2) Lakers oF ole ashistante. BR Countel, IN THE , _ SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES : PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI Petitioner respectfully prays that a writ of certiorari issue to review the judgment below. OPINIONS BELOW of ox cases from federal courts: ; ‘The opinion of the United States court of appeals appears at