Whether the District Court properly interpreted Underwood's Martinez v. Ryan claims when his state post-conviction counsel and trial counsel were ineffective

QUESTIONS PRESENTED This Court’s decisions in Martinez v. Ryan, 566 U.S. 1 (2012), and Trevino v. Thaler, 133 S. Ct. 1911 (2018) held that state prisoners whose states prevented them from raising an ineffective assistance of trial counsel claim on direct appeal were not procedurally defaulted from raising the ineffective assistance of trial counsel claim in a § 2254 petition, if they were unrepresented or had ineffective assistance of counsel during state post-conviction relief proceedings. Relying on its recent decision in Martinez, this Court held in Trevino that “the failure to consider a lawyer’s ineffectiveness during an initial-review collateral proceeding as a potential ‘cause’ for excusing a procedural default will deprive the defendant of any opportunity at all for review of an_ claim.” 133 S. Ct. at 1921. In the decision below, App. 7a-8a, the District Court incorrectly found Underwood’s claims of ineffective assistance of postconviction counsel were meritless and could not be the basis for habeas corpus relief. This case presents the following questions: 1. Whether the District Court properly interpreted Underwood’s Martinez v. Ryan claims when his state post-conviction counsel and trial counsel were ineffective. 2. Whether the Sixth Circuit erred in affirming the decision of the District Court and denying Underwood a Certificate of Appealability.