Is there a distinction between remedies in raising ineffectiveness of constitutional counsel on direct appeal, where constitutional counsel is allowed, and on collateral review, where constitutional counsel is not allowed, when the petitioner request for an evidentiary hearing?

QUESTION PRESENTED FOR REVIEW QUESTION 1 , IS THERE A DISTINCTION BETWEEN REMEDIES IN RAISING INEFFECTIVENESS OF CONSTITUTIONAL COUNSEL ON DIRECT APPEAL, WHERE CONSTITUTIONAL COUNSEL IS ALLOWED, AND ON COLLATERAL REVIEW, WHERE CONSTITUTIONAL COUNSEL IS NOT ALLOWED, WHEN THE PETITIONER REQUEST FOR AN EVIDENTIARY HEARING? IF NO, DOES THE RESPONDENT’S ARBITRARY AND IRRATIONAL DENIAL OF EVIDENTIARY HEARING ON DIRECT REVIEW VIOLATES THE PETITIONER’S DUE PROCESS RIGHT TO AN ADEQUATE REMEDY TO RAISE INEFFECTIVENESS OF CONSTITUTIONAL COUNSEL QUESTION 2: WHETHER IT VIOLATES DUE PROCESS FOR THE TRIAL JUDGE TO DENY } THE PETITIONER AN EVIDENTIARY HEARING TO SHOW THE PETITIONER WAS SUBJECTED TO STATE’S INTERFERENCE WITH THE PETITIONER'S COUNSEL, TO INEFFECTIVENESS OF TRIAL COUNSEL, AND TO CONFLICT OF INTEREST WITH THE PETITIONER’S COUNSEL CONCERNING BOTH THE PETITIONER’S INTERSTATE ARGREEMENT OF DETAINER ACT AND SPEEDY TRIAL ISSUES | | | | | ii , PARTIES Steven Louis Barnes, as Petitioner. State of South Carolina, as Respondent. iii