Has Petitioner been denied the right to a meaningful appeal of his motion to suppress evidence under Jackson v. Denno, 378 U.S. 368 (1964), that occurred prior to trial?

No question identified. : have davied viaht +a moaninaful appeal of his mation to Suppress owidenck, under Dackson v. Denne 378 U8. 208 (1904), that oceuved prior trial ? 2. Has Potfionor boon danied offecbive assishnes of trial Counsel if he expressed a dosive b Appell tb his tial Counsel but; tral Counsel Biled t Pile Notios of “ep? 3. AMer a Patter expresses his desire appeal a pvetval mahion Pr suppress Widener buts relies on Counsel tr appeal guom Yhoush ho emlercs 2 tanditimal plea Yat an appeal toould he Aken but Yun at Semloneina Yo indore admonishes Unat No appeal Can lo kon sis rat ineleotive asctehues of pehtinn ons trul Counsel for not tellivia Hee court abasuct a ppeal intended LUM Phaudh Prat Undo Teas Rule of appollate pncedure Rulo 25.2(VXAW) m0 Perinission Fawn Yur Cort is veoded +, appel Ho Pretral mation but, tounsed fasts to Fle Ya appeal anY lay,’ 1. Ln Toras, whore Caurvt of Gaminal appeals Pretors Yat =nolhobyg Usistnes of “Tvl (ounces be varsed in Collateal Oracoa no hud; Counse| filed 4 blo appeal in Uo bivet place, and potter’ Paso" belo his inifial application lov Larit al habeas Cor pus, and does not Vai se inatketive Apne at ~ tour rabonl rund Yad should arsed on dite Q Docs domi) Yu application dia ty fe Detdaral hat oreneausl i movi because no appeal tas dakon YinelY dus fe Counsel’ daticiont performance ° 5. Lohan febitonons tral Counsel fils t Hal Ale appeal and Pditionens Conviction is Hnalized ,and Paditrovnov Flos Abe aplication LsMhout Counsel avd Hw application is denied Hum pehtower Socks Federal veliek, and afrnaY semerale otf ice mislea cee Tedural courts that Court of Criminal appeals donied apolication on Pre movite of Ye clams but dw Court of Criminal appeals donied Yu applicaton tsthout a tovitem ordew bensuge Hats Lohak i} doo on procedenallY aed dpplicab onc bud, ifs more. label, has Ina ckte violated dus prea’ of Uw 14h amond ont even rou Wat putitoner’ Convitdion Luas Final beck Ho Pinality Could be waditied Hrveush arent ah sukaltimg apperl ° (shen asbte intermidiate Court of appails issues vnandate, anal She law is well established Ynat tonuichon ix vot Pinal for habeas pur pases until appeal tout issuss Mandate oven Yhoush its appeal Nas beam dismissed for lack of suncdivhon because ike until, has Yue conuittion haan modified + access habeag | Puy poses ° (sn 28 9.0.3 2244 MIE) @nd ~7.0.er. 2 ard. il.o1) b) bLohum inlor midiale Court of appeals is subse nav date with Apinion nating Hrat appeal las boom dismissed Gor lack of suviciohon luc; a habeas Corpus ts Yur vemedd ty cure Ye dofeot, thon an application Loy Loxit of Wabeas Ca¥ pus 1S Bled to Court of Cwiininal appeals but, Court dismisses Applicaton as subseaumt instead of avamntns out-ab-time appeal "hs palifioner boom dupived af nis sixth tnortlimunt waht ty aippeal? (ul rex” All farhes appar in Yhe Caption of ths. ease on lover fase. Table. of Lon tone Opinims behis ~~... pod Suvisdietin — 2 eee ae pg Constitutamal and Satubwy pruisons involued --ps2 Shlemunk of Vascase 2 2-2 ~~ --p93 | Reaver sv Bvanting Loyd 2-2 2 e257 Conelusimnn — =. = -~ pot iv _ 6 pend ix 4 Ex parle ~ Cecom mentation °