Whether the automatic waiver and permanent forfeiture of legal insufficiency claims due to trial counsel's failure to move to dismiss on those grounds violates the criminal defendant's due process rights

QUESTION PRESENTED 1. Upon trial counsel’s failure to move to dismiss on legal insufficiency grounds at trail, is the uninformed automatic waiver and silently imposed permanent forfeiture of legal insufficiency claims per Hines; Lane a violation of criminal defendant’s due process rights? : 2. 1 © sitaonay reasonable to forever forfeit legal insufficiency grounds, claims, and examination of prosecution’s legal sufficiency requirement removing defendant’s constitutional protections of burden of proof against the . accused as applied by the Hines; Lane rule? ; 3. Can hearsay of a deceased codefendant, unable to be confronted or reliability tested, whom had devised a separate plan with a second codefendant, be used to implicate a third codefendant who had no knowledge of their plan, through coconspirator exception to the hearsay rule? : Is Sixth Amendment right to confront violated? If there is no shared common plan or shared knowledge between the three, is there a conspiracy on which the hearsay exception can be based? . tie i JURISDICTION . New York Court of Appeals, the highest court of review, denied Leave to Appeal on October 17, 2019. Decisions: : Court of Appeals decision in People v. Trappler, 34 NY 3d 985 (10/17/2019) . People v. Trappler, 173 AD 3d 1334 (June 13, 2019) Schuyler County Indictment 2012-37 Per U.S. Sup. Ct. Rule 10, 28 U.S.C.A. Section ¢: ; c) a State Court has decided an important question of federal law that has not been, but should be settled by this Court, or has. decided an important federal question in a way that conflicts with relevant decision of this court.