Whether the California Supreme Court erred in denying petitioner's constitutional rights under the 5th and 14th Amendments, including the right to effective assistance of counsel, due process, and habeas corpus relief

QUESTIONS) PRESENTED ORIGINAL 0 Tee Coli Formin Su piLeme Coun Jiele fy vi tal CopsfiTatuod pl Rigrls uvaes rue TH py welt ps my em pmenmen! histlfs, 3 huBber stempikg 17 genial 2! pay HpBeps Colpo Petty, raat CLenaly spowe? ype 5 Tote Faire? fo Paovigg ME evialiuv pssisiprct ph Counsel pe The STyfe wiTheld vit yl pundy gmptedipy mm THE wb} ok Tue wesptive GSR. Esults TE court oF Appapls ww )tNELO bisa en su/0 Ep Le THAT Tile’ Couvsel wRS fie MIVED of je pice serar iow ok ré OW G&6o7. THE Cyl Koevin cy erer* court Usel clark, Cibajus wud miller To covek YF TVe gfales Eqs 5104 $ vislulows oF my pen enn consti Tarewne pig) THAT Nas Led To ; ry Fpess pry isonmenl for 15 YER SO cpp wih we per feCowtst 0% fe SovO Le venus Tp Frq¥l we | cAse ue THe® g seep! my THs Cbert,