Whether petitioner's original trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance of counsel in violation of U.S. Const. Amn. 6

QUESTION(S) PRESENTED . Question #1: Whether pevitioner’s Orig aal trial counsel cendered ineffechive assistance of counsel 19 violekion of U.S. Const. Amn. 6 when counsel failed Yo Pursve suppression of Petitioner's confession because PeliVonec tavoked a reques\ Sar counsel doeing Pebikioner’s police \averview, aad because he requested +o end all questioning. Question #2: Whether tne Tennessee Couch of | 7 Criminal Kopeals decided an venporvant federal question Va a way thek cons\icts wit Fare v. : Michael GC. 442 U.S. 107 Gad), Loikin v. Solem, 116 F.2d 532 08% Cie. 1483); Michigan v. Mosely, 423 U5 96 ; (1975), Powell v. Alabama, 287 0.5.45 932), Smith v. Dugger, AM F.2d AGH CU Cic. 1490); Semith v. Wainwright; W171 £24 609 Ge Cic. 1985); S¥yare v. Bailey, B84 F.2d 738 Cikan. 1945); Stake v. Wright, 477 A 1265 Crs 1984); and U.S. v. De Coster 487 F248 1197 CO. Cir. 1973),