Whether a criminal defendant's right to counsel on direct appeal attaches throughout the period when the appellate court has jurisdiction over the case

QUESTIONS PRESENTED Because Petitioner was indigent, the State of South Carolina appointed an attorney from the South Carolina Commission on Indigent Defense (Celia Robinson) to represent Petitioner on his direct appeal from his South Carolina state court conviction for assault and battery with intent to kill. After briefing concluded, but while the appeal was still pending, Robinson left the Commission without notifying either Petitioner or the appellate court. Ten days thereafter, the South Carolina Court of Appeals issued an opinion affirming Petitioner’s conviction. Under South Carolina law, Petitioner had a right to petition for review of that decision by the South Carolina Supreme Court but was required to file a petition for rehearing with the South Carolina Court of Appeals as a prerequisite to doing so. Petitioner did not do so because he was affirmatively misled about his legal rights by a paralegal at the Commission. Specifically, a Commission paralegal posed as attorney Robinson and, without the knowledge or authorization of Robinson or any other Commission attorney, sent a letter to Petitioner on Commission letterhead in which she forged Robinson’s signature and falsely told Petitioner that he had exhausted his state court remedies. The questions presented are: 1. Whether a criminal defendant’s right to counsel on direct appeal attaches throughout the period when the appellate court has jurisdiction over the case. 2. Whether an indigent defendant is denied his right to counsel under the Sixth Amendment when the State appoints an attorney to represent him on appeal but then, without the defendant’s knowledge, replaces that attorney with a non-lawyer who (i) fraudulently represents herself to be an attorney and (ii) provides the defendant with incorrect information regarding his legal rights and available remedies, and thereby causes the defendant to forfeit his right to seek further judicial review. i STATEMENT OF