Whether the Eighth Circuit's summary denial of Mr. True's application for a certificate of appealability was based on an adjudication of the underlying merits without jurisdiction

QUESTION(S) PRESENTED 1) Wos the Eighth Circuit's summary denial ef My. Truc's. application for a certificate of appecalatnity based upon an adyudicathon of the underiying merits, made withOut jurisdiction in violation of 28 V.S.C. 8 2753 and Miligv -Et_v. Cockveul, S37 U.S. 822, (23 S.Ct. 1024, 154 4. edd. 2d _931 (2003), and what standard did the court employ in it Analysis of the application for certificate of appealobility? 2) Pid the Eighth Circuit evr when it denied Mr. True a certficate of appealability on his claim thot his pica was not Knowing, voluntary, or mteltigent, where the vecord did not disclose that he voluntarily and inteigenttly entered . Q& pita of guilty, such récord being vequived “by both State and Federal law and precedent? 3) Could reasonable jurists debate whether or not Mr. | True veceived the mefectwe assistance of Counsel under Strickland y. washington, lae WS. lle& (1954), Where trial counsei; 1) failed te Conduct a thorough investigation and form a viabie theovy of defense; 2) foiled to request a pre pita mental health cvaluation and competency detevmination; and 3) withheld discovery metenals which mctuded potentiality exculpatery fovensic infovwotion favorable to Mr. True, ard instead pressured him to picad guilty 2 . i 4) Should the Eighth Court be required to make reference to the standawks gpveming the issuance of a certieicate of appealability when trey issue or deny a certificate . OF appentabiity application ? . iil