Are New York's criminal appellate procedures deficient or prejudicial to due process?

QUESTIONS PRESENTED FOR REVIEW : I. ' Are New York State's criminal appéllate procedurés deficient, and/or prejudicial to a criminal defendant's due process, equal protection and/or state-granted right to appeal when the state appellate procedures require that factual challenges to the conviction precede a direct appeal by a post-conviction motion, and the sentencing judge advises a defendant of his right to appeal but not the right to a factual challenge via the post-conviction motion such that the Petitioner should ‘be granted a new appeal? . II. Did Appellate Counsel's failure to expand the record prior to | filing an appeal deprive the Petitioner of effective assistance of counsel, and did New York State Courts inhospitably deny . Petitioner. his right to appeal when state law and procedures unduly complicate the right to appeal a criminal conviction by : relegating factual challenges to the post-conviction motion, : such that Petitioner is entitled to a new appeal? _ iii. Did the New York State courts from the Petitioner the presumptionxof correctness due him by federal law, and/or otherwise unreasonably,deny the Petitioner due process and/or his right to appeal by denying his petition for.a _ writ of error seeking to vacate his appeal denial and proceed first with a motion to expand the record that ineffective appellate counsel denied him, such that Petitioner is entitled to a new appeal with the opportunity to first expand the record? Iv. Are New York State's appellate procedures, as written or as applied, inadequate or ineffective to protect and safeguard a : criminal defendant's right to appeal and/or due process or ; equal protection when, as here, the state court refused to deploy its statutory fact-finding to consider the Petitioner's timely filed and served pro se supple-~ mental brief and/or failed to investigate its factual contentions that the appeal was proceeding on “errors and omissions," such that the Petitioner should be granted a new appeal and/or in keeping with state precedent that a hearing be held to det| ermine if a new trial should be ordered? | ; Vv. Did Respondent State's appellate court commit constitutional injury to the Petitioner and/or abuse its discretion to make factual findings when it irrationally affirmed the verdict and ex post facto superimposed its reaspning to cure a fatal defect in the trial transcript instead of ordering a new trial, such that Petitioner is entitled to a new trial and/or new appeal? ; Page i ; VI. Is the Respondent State's use of negative specific act character testimony in criminal trials a:widlation of existing : ~~ federal law -and/or-a criminal defendants rights under ‘the ‘Gonstitution, such that Petitioner's trial verdict (influenced by such testimony) should be overturned and/or are the Respondent : ‘State's appellate court's failures to evaluate the harmful effects of such testimony in Petitioner's trial as required by : federal law grounds to order a new appeal for the Petitioner? VII. Was Petitioner's claims to ineffective trial counsel and ineffective appellate counsel insufficiently or inhospitably evaluated by the Respondent State's appellate courts such as to entitle him to a new appeal, and/or is New York State's preference for its own distinctive state standard for evaluating ineffective ; claims to the exclusion of the federal STRICKLAND ¥3:WASHINGTON standard delaying the detection of ineffective counsel and also thereby withholding meaningful appellate review to criminal ' appellants in violation of the Constitutionss guarantees to due process, equal protection, and in pralonging cruel and unusual punishment if wrongfully convicted as a result of ineffective counsel such that federal habeas relief should be made available to criminal appellants even prior to the exhaustion of state ‘ remedies? . ; : VIIl. Does a State's claim to offer the:tright of appeal to criminal defendants -as New York purports to do ~require that the state maintain proc