Can a state provide a rational basis to deny a death row prisoner his right to the state's first collateral, conviction, review process, where the prisoner wanted, and diligently pursued, his right to such collateral review, but he was denied collateral review due to counsel's abandonement, and the trial court's failure to manage its docket?

Question Presented for Review Petitioner Douglas Coley is the only known, Ohio death row prisoner who wanted, but did not receive, a post-conviction review of his convictions and death sentence. Mr. Coley is not at fault because two occurrences denied him a state postconviction review. First, Mr. Coley’s appointed counsel abandoned him by not doing . any work on the post-conviction case. Second, the trial court abdicated its duty to control its own docket and safeguard Mr. Coley’s statutory right to seek postconviction review of his capital conviction and death sentence. As a death row prisoner under Ohio’s system, Mr. Coley was entiled to appointed counsel for state post-conviction review, and the trial court. appointed such counsel for Mr. Coley. However, appointed counsel simply abandoned Mr. Coley. His appointed counsel failed to investigate, consult with Mr. Coley, or file a postconviction application on his behalf. Upon discovering that failure, Mr. Coley sought to redress his situation by filing a motion with the trial court to provide new and functional counsel, but the trial court denied his request as moot based on the prior appointment order that it had issued. The trial court also put an entry on its docket denying a post-conviction . petition that was never even filed. Mr. Coley counted on the trial court to provide him with counsel for post-conviction review, but the trial court failed him because it abdicted its duty to manage its own appointment order. i Following the trial court’s abdication of its duty to appoint functional counsel, | Mr. Coley then tried, on his own, to secure counsel. Yet, no consel was available to litigate off-the record issues for Mr. Coley until his present counsel was appointed for clemency review in April, 2016. Without a first post-conviction review, Mr. Coley had to meet the extraordinary hurdles placed on untimely or successive collateral review claims. ‘ Mr. Coley eventually sought review in the Supreme Court of Ohio, asserting that he was blameless in, and actually prejudiced by, the state’s irrational refusal to provide him with a first, collateral review process. The Supreme Court of Ohio denied relief, and Mr. Coley now raises the following question for this Court’s review: Can a state provide a rational basis to deny a death row prisoner his right to the state’s first collateral, conviction, review process, where the prisoner wanted, and diligently pursued, his right to such collateral review, but he was denied collateral review due to counsel’s : abandonement, and the trial court’s failure to manage its docket? ii