Whether the lower court erred in dismissing petitioner's claims for lack of standing and failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted

ESTIONS PRESENTED POINT I . WAS APPELLANT DEPRIVED OF THE RIGHT TO APPELLATE COUNSEL WHEN THERE WAS NO KNOWINGLY, INTELLIGENTLY AND VOLUNTARY os WAIVER OF THE RIGHT TO ASSIGNED APPELLATE COUNSEL, see, ° JOHNSON V ZERBST 304 U.S. 458 (1938), EVITTS V_ LUCEY ' 469 U.S. 387 ( 1988 ), N.Y.S. CONST. 1 B 6, 1 B Il, U.S.C. 5th, 6th, 14th? . a POINT II a, ; DOES THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE MANDATE THAT AN APPELLANT PROCEEDING PRO SE ON DIRECT APPEAL BE PROVIDED WITH A SUFFICIENT APPEAL RECORD, PEOPLE V MEALER 57 N.Y.2d 214, a 219 ( 1982 ), CERT. DENIED 460 U.S. 1024 ( 1983), | : DRAPER V WASHINGTON 372 U.S. 487, 499 (+1963 ), MARTINEZ V_COURT OF APPEALS OF CALIFORNIA, FOURTH APPELLATE DIST. 528 U.S. 152, 163 ( 2000 ), N.Y.S. CONST. 1 8 6, 18 Il, " oULS.C.. 1st. 5th, 14th? IS THERE A NEW YORK STATE STATUTORY RIGHT OR A CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO PROCEED PRO SE ON DIRECT _ APPEAL AFTER A JURY TRIAL, MARTINEZ © COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FOURTH APPELLATE DIST. 528 U.S. 152, 163 ( 2000 ); C.P.L. B 450.10, N.Y.S. CONST. 1 B 6, oe dB? a vo = | — . |