Whether the defendant's due process rights were violated by the denial of his right to appeal an out-of-time appeal

QUESTION(S) PRESENTED 1, T+ adeferclasz, who is A Laymar, have A svaruroky Riote 70 AN Appeal by the Srare of Feokain and 1S olenicol rhac Alohr TO AW Appeal, would thar be Avidlation oF The debendawr'’s We fheess Righz To AW Appeal of ovr-ofTime appen | ? Zz. Ts rhe thacloomenr ot couuse( Loe rhe deleaclanr Alree ft ples heneine OR SEN TENCIn/O) of Cauisr:ze7iowal Maan zuole Viola ripto the Sixrh Amevlmenr of Ekfeerz} Me Z . é Tre S SVS FBMCE of Counse |? 3. rf che de levdawz, A Layman, shows zhar Ais covuwsel was inelleccrive 1A Nor iuboeminoy hin ot his Rio hr TOA hkeer Appeal o& Any posr-cowvicrion Kemecties ACrek his pen And char counse( was decbiciewT iW Fini liney 70 Gile ae Timel vA Worice o€ Appeal, Anal thar, bur Cok Couusel's | cleficiewey, he would have APPA led, Ts rhe lelenclaw 7 | Entizled “70 AW OVT-oltTr Me Apper puch would char be a violariw o€ deleudwe's due kOe ss Riohres ? | | 4. Noss rhe reial CouR7T have 4A duzy To wv boRkm CLimimal cdeferolgurs of Theie Righ=s 7O apper | Awd Thus Ard dAcLeud urs ENzizled cre Av Ovr-ol Time Appeal i€ WOT SO Adlvisedl ? a