Whether the District Court erred in denying petitioners effective assistance of trial counsel claims in cases like Texas, in light of the Supreme Court Ruling in Trevino v. Thaler

QUESTION(S) PRESENTED (D should the Datrict Court Aagamt Counsel to ttalocos Petitioners with — aeMedive Prssstance of trol Counsel claims In Gates like Texas, In es of the Seis Ruling tn Trevino v. Thaler 23 sch. ll, Cooling, that petitionee wast titel Sever” Hod the Gavrontee! of elective Courcel att Appeal tulPitlcl te Aasist Said pefitioner WW ‘preparing ove presenting” the inebhecive fsistance oMrial Connse! clas preven boy the fick Haat the Sots cok TH Teuino v. Tholer thakdne tichest coortin Texas explicity Tells Americus in Texas to Nat “Adbhiass neechive Assistance oD Trial covnsel claus on Direct Aeparl wheve the Only Oppertunityof A Gavvantee af Gunsel exists andin Tal a the. ak Wat the Sictos sath in Guidls v Lucey WA v.s.587" The abviovs truth that lawyers are necessiheS Unt Luwr is: clearly, Me people in stales We Tends aveDenlech this “Uecessity” Leaving Hie “Govrontee’ to Counsel A TheoreHiaal Coicept eather thon & Constitutional Goorante 80 Srould int thase feofle Gek Covnsel THUS. Denk Court a Prepare ancl presemt Inelechive Aevtstance of trial Counsel soncl Directly Colated ciodtms? | @ should Rderal role 264 5 Raply. tre Not allousing inellock vw. tastsfonwe of Repeal Coonel be AGround Sse velied” tn states ite Teas consiolering tne faaledl procedural systein ie Addressing, Meffeckive tharstance of tral Cavieel clades ax Niele Ay the ScoTos iM “Trevtaa v. Thaler 133s cb. tall ana Ky Texas Hoes Court Qveting Scotus Tre Exparte Garola U8le $1.34 8b . SG -me US_dishict Coot Called my Haber Corpus & “IBS civil surf ~ The SMeteait ck. Called tm ttadoeas Corpus ~ Should the Cart hasie-called Wy Hobers Corpus AIRES th Oreler to Deny the RelieP Loowing Huns tt Haloeas Corpus anc Shot this would make the. seCrxeurt Deny pelted os wet ?