Whether the Alabama state courts and the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals erred in refusing to apply the Supreme Court's rule in Martinez v. Ryan

QUESTION(S) PRESENTED ; I. Whether or not during evaluations, decisions, and judgments, the Alabama jfeial, State Courts, are in complete contradiction to this Onited States ‘Supreme Court's Sixth Amendment Constitutional Law where Petitioner has shown, and the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals has . ° admitted that (1) Petitioner's only opportunity to raise Ineffective Assistance ef Trial Ceunsel would be under State Rule 32.1 et seq ‘ proceedings because. Petitioner was ‘represented at trial, and onder . @ixect appeal by the same attorney, and (2) .Petitioner's Rule 32 post” ~ conviction counsel was ineffective for “abandoning” him in the Alabama . Supreme icourt under a filed "writ of cert", by removing that petition . ~ ~causing | procedural default without any notice first-to Petitioner, : ~— _ under tilis court's ruling in Martinez v. Ryan, 566 U.S. 1, 132 S.Ct. . 1308, 162 L.Ed. 272 (2012) 2 a OO ~ -s It. nde ‘er -not during evaluations, decigions, and judgments, the. 7 United ee Court of Appeals has. erred in refusing te apply this . * . . “Gaited States Supreme Court's rule of Martinez as announced. under the o , above sane facts in this case, and in so doing implies the said. . me =” Appeals (court refuses to allow all pro se inmates from the state of... “Alabama ir