Were the Due Process rights of Joey Rogers ignored?

QUESTIONS PRESENTED 1.Were the Due Process rights of Joey Rogers ignored by the Louisiana Courts when they maintained a plea made by the vulnerable, illiterate, hearing impaired, eighteen year old with an IQ of 63 and no experience with the judicial system, who was totally reliant on appointed, unprepared and overwhelmed counsel who admitted her incompetence and acknowledged using misrepresentation of facts and intimidation to coerce his plea? Was it error for Louisiana Courts to deny the motion to withdraw a guilty plea that was premised upon the violation of fundamental Constitutional rights of the mentally challenged defendant, thereby denying him justice, fairness and effective assistance of counsel on a plea that was not knowingly and voluntarily entered? 2. The incompetence and ineffectiveness of counsel who procured Joey Rogers’ plea surpasses the defects in representation previously addressed by the Court! and casts a shadow on the efficacy of all appointed counsel. Where a defendant who is incompetent to assist counsel is represented by counsel who is incompetent to assist him because she had not met with him for two years, was unfamiliar with the State’s evidence, did not know that there was substantial exculpatory evidence, and did not move to suppress the State’s only evidence, are Joey Rogers’ Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments right to counsel violated where his counsel then pressured him to plead guilty so that she could avoid trial? 3. Were the Petitioner’s Due Process rights to a fair proceeding honored where the Louisiana courts let stand the State’s violation of a plea agreement that increased the minimum sentence by twenty years and his counsel admittedly provided ineffective counsel under Sixth Amendment standards by failing to object to the violation? 'See