Whether the California courts' denials bar Dean-Baumann's federal claims

QUESTIONS PRESENTED This case presents questions about the AEDPA: I. Do the California Courts’ Denials Bar DeanBaumann’s Federal Claims? ; Does Martinez Apply to Ineffective Assistance of Trial and Appellate Counsel Claims Raised in a State Habeas Petition? II. Did the Trial Court’s Failure to Instruct on the Lesser Included Misdemeanor Offense Deny DeanBaumann Her Federal and State Constitutional Due Process Rights? Ill. Should Dean-Baumann Get an Evidentiary Hearing on Her Claims? ; Did the Courts Unreasonably Refuse to Hold an Evidentiary Hearing? 1 TOPICAL INDEX Page QUESTIONS PRESENTED . 01 CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS INVOLVED .1 FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND .4 REASONS TO GRANT CERTIORARI .8 I. THE CALIFORNIA COURTS’ DENIALS DID NOT BAR DEAN-BAUMANN’S FEDERAL CLAIMS BECAUSE MARTINEZ APPLIES TO INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF TRIAL AND APPELLATE COUNSEL CLAIMS RAISED IN A STATE HABEAS A. Introduction . 0.000 ee 8 B. Based on Martinez, Dean-Baumann Has Shown Cause and Prejudice for Any Default as to Claims 1, 2,4,5 0.0.0... cc ccc eee eee eee ee LO C. Martinez applies to Post-Conviction Ineffective Assistance of Appellate Counsel Claims .12 D. ACOA Should Be Granted.15 E. Dean-Baumann Has Shown, as to Claim 3, a Miscarriage of Justice .16 il Il. THE TRIAL COURT’S FAILURE TO INSTRUCT ON THE LESSER INCLUDED MISDEMEANOR OFFENSE DENIED DEAN-BAUMANN HER FEDERAL AND STATE CONSTITUTIONAL DUE lil. THE COURTS’ UNREASONABLE REFUSALS TO HOLD A FEDERAL EVIDENTIARY HEARING, ENTITLES DEAN-BAUMANN TO AN EVIDENTIARY