Does a Texas prisoner have a constitutional right to appointment of effective assistance of counsel in collateral proceedings

QUESTIONS PRESENTED 1. DOES A TEXAS PRISONER HAVE A CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO APPOINTMENT OF EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL IN COLLATERAL PROCEEDINGS WHICH PROVIDE THE ONLY MEANINGFUL OPPORTUNITY TO RAISE CLAIM(s) OF INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF TRIAL COUNSEL, AS SUCH CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT IS AFFORDED TO INDIGENT PRISONERS FILING A DIRECT APPEAL, PURSUANT TO THE HOLDINGS OF DOUGLAS V. CALIFORNIA, 83 S.Ct. 814 (1963); and EVITTS V. LUCEY, 105 S.Ct. 830 (1985)? 2. DID THE FIFTH CIRCUIT’COURT OF APPEALS DECISION TO DENY ROSALES' REQUEST FOR ISSURANCE OF A CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY CONFLICT WITH THE HOLDINGS OF BAREFOOT V. ESTELLE, 463 U.S. 893 (1933); MILLER-EL V. COCKRELL, 537 U.S. 338 (2003); and FLIEGER V. DELO, 16 F.3d 883 (8th Cir. 1994)? 3. DID THE FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT'SXDECISION TO DENY MR. ROSALES' REQUEST FOR AN EVIDENTIARY HEARING CONFLICT WITH THE HOLDINGS OF TOWNSEND V. SAIN, 372 U.S. 293 (1963); AND KEENEY V. TAMAYOREYES, 504 U.S. 1, 5 (1992), WHEN MR. ROSALES, DUE TO HIS INDIGENT STATUS, AND THE COURT'S FAILURE TO APPOINT COUNSEL, PROVIDED THE COURT WITH THE ONLY EVIDENCE (an internet Blog) HE COULD OBTAIN TO SUBSTANTIATE HIS CLAIM? | | | | | | | | i. | SC