Whether Supreme Court decisions in Buck v. Davis, Martinez v. Ryan, and Trevino v. Thaler permit federal habeas review of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel claims that were procedurally defaulted in state post-conviction proceedings

QUESTIONS) PRESENTED , Whether Quprema Clute decisions m Buck v Devs 137 Sct 769,(us2017)) Martinez v, Ryan, S66U.S.4(2013) y Trevino ¥ Vole, 567 US, 133S:64 1911 (2013), permitting, Feckeral habeas revieur of an inekhetve assistance of teref counsel y co cee Appellant Counsel, pest conmeti on. tounsa| loam. theFwos-dlefautted State procechhigy| barred Tra state peste conviction. receeding iF state habeas counse | was constrhitronally nelhictve in Failing de rosé tt meaning ineffective Assistance of Appellate Counsel in las Gest 1492 State habeos where counsel Ladune + C le Notice of Agpeol [cael +ty the disonsse( of my Direct Ae peel oF Kiahoh bad the Clasms has some merit,” appliedt retroactively cases on Collateral review wos worvedl by Ste in Fidera) habeas proceecling, whera State's Argument was never-thet the oleeisions did pet APP hy Fetoactively was not advanced by State tw) Lsteet, Court. ~ Qa, Whetkethe EC relitt Court of. 2 and Niskie url; rror “And abyiste jfs oliscrefion. when trees ora rl ta Meton, surrounding the New thonge wm The Louw Applizel rato —~ 3 Fi, uwhethey the yth Lireutt Court; A) A eals Ni tif “45 Coit Ft re esulfedl hh oO olecision. “hat sons eorctiar uy 6 oF Inwolveol an 2aSorcobl heoffore clears . oF the Unite Stites mention, ne Buck v Savis(Z017) Martinez Vv Ryan (2012) and Irevine v Vale (2013) P | 3 ,