POINT I
WAS APPELLANT DEPRIVED OF THE RIGHT TO APPELLATE COUNSEL
WHEN
THERE WAS NO KNOWINGLY, INTELLIGENTLY AND VOLUNTARY
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. C0NST. 1 B 6, 1 B 11, U.S.C.
5th, 6th, 14th?

POINT
II
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
1 214,
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
E DIST
528 U.S. 152, 163 ( 2000 ), N.Y.S. C0NST. 1 B 6, 1
B
11,
U.S.C. 1st. 5th, 14th?

POINT
T III
IS THERE A NEW
YORK
STATE STATUTORY
RIGHT
OR A
CONSTITUTIONAL
RIGHT
Γ 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,
1 B 11?

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