Where Petitioner's counsel did not pursue his wishes to file an appeal, was he denied effective assistance of counsel?

QUESTIONS PRESENTED 1. Where Petitioner's 'state-trial court counsel' did not pursue Petitioner's wishes, commands, and orders to file a after Petitioner personally made objections to the ‘trial court judge's' amending the terms of the original plea deal and imposing that were not reasonably related to the offense of sex offender registration in retaliation for appealing prosecutorial misconduct. once before; where Petitioner's 'state-trial court counsel' did not abject to then mental-treatment for Petitioner was ordered py the same judge; where Petitioner's state-trial counsel! did not disclose"to the trial court that the Petitioner suffered "issues of incompetence" but only mentioned during the revocation hearing that "Betitioner had a talent for upsetting everyone"; where Petitioner's 'state-trial court counsel’ was not prepared neither reasonably competent to render effective representation to the sudden and instant "First Amended Motion To Revoke" which was introduced for the 'first-time' at the "revocation hearing" inviolation of due process and Petitioner's 'state-trial court counsel' not objecting to the "First Amended Motion To Revoke" filed in violation of due process by Demartino; was such Petitioner denied his 'Sixth-Amendment! right to effective assistance of counsel, where... (1) his counsel did not pursue his wishes, commands, and order to enter an appeal sa appellant-counsel could be appointed to pursue objections to 'trial court judge's! abuse of discretion of amending the terms of the ariginal plea deal and imposing conditions of probation that were not issued before, and not reasonably related to the offense he was on probation for, but imposed and ordered by trial court judge in retaliation for eppealing prosecutorial misconduct, and (2) where his counsel made No objection to his restoration of competence by but the ‘same judge! ordered and imposed and (3) where his counsel did not disclose to the trial court that he suffered "issues of incompetence" but only mentioned during the revocation hearing on 'November 13,2014', ‘that "he had a talent for upsetting every one", and (4) where his*counsel knew he was not prepared for the "First Amended Motion To Revoke" which was filed in violation of due process and introduced on the day (i-) ; of the revocation hearing in violation of the due process af legal . notice to prepare a defense and neither did his counsel object to the "First Amended Motion To Rekoke" filed in violation of due process of law? 2. Where Petitioner's ‘appellate counsel! did not inform Petitioner of the right to submit a "pro se appellant's brief" during the to ascertain the 'Assistant-District Attorney's! fraud of altering the trial court records and the 'trial judge's' orally pronounced judgment and sentence, to correct the where Petitioner's ‘appellate counsel' was ineffective for submitting inadequate briefs during "both appeal-attemts" where neither brief referred to anything in the record that could arguably support an appeal; where Petitioner's ‘appellate counsel' failed to raise insufficient evidence and for not perfecting an YNappellant's brief for appeal" upon Petitioner's request and order; was such Petitioner denied his 'Sixth-Amendment' right to effective assistance of counsel on appeal, where... (1) his ‘appellate counsel' did not inform him of the right to submit his oun "pro se appellant's brief" during the to complain of the W.Demartino' altering the "trial court records-sentencing records" and the ‘trial judge's! orally pronounced judgment and sentence, to correct "trial court records-sentencing records", (2) where his 'appellate counsel' was ineffective for submitting inadequate briefs during "both appeal; attempts" where neither brief referred to anything in the record that could arguably support an appeal of the ineffective assistance of trial court counsel at the revocation hearing, the many abuses of discretion by trial court, or af the or of the due process