Is a petitioner entitled to effective assistance of successor counsel to file a 2254 writ of habeas corpus despite the statute of limitations

QUESTIONS PRESENTED 1. IS A PETITIONER ENTITLED TO BE PROVIDED THE EFFECTIVE ASSISTNACE OF ° SUCCESSOR OOUNSEL IN ACCORD WITH DUE PROCESS OF LAW, THEREBY OVERCOMING THE ONE-YEAR STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS UNDER 2244(d), TO FILE A aon 2254 WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS, IF BOTH THE APPELLATE COURT AND THE PETITIONERS COURT APPOINTED COUNSEL FAILED TO IDENTIFY THE EXISTENCE OF AN TISSUE OF ARGUABLE MERIT WHILE DECIDING A DIRECT APPEAL UNDER ANDERS V. CALIFRRNIA, 386 U.S. 736 (1967) ? 2. IS A LEGAL ERROR COMMITTED BY THE STATE COURT WHILE DECIDING A DIRECT APPEAL UNDER ANDERS V. CALIFORNIA, 386 U.S. 736 (1967), AN EXTERNAL IMPEDIMENT BEYOND THE PETITIONERS CONTROL WHICH WOULD PROVIDE GROUNDS FOR ; EQUITABLE TOLLING ? . 3. DID THE LOWER COURTS ERR BY FAILING TO GRANT A CERTIFICATE OF APPEALAIBILITY ? A , 1. PARTIES IN COURT BELOW Other than the present petitioner and Respondent, there was no other parties in the lower Court's & a.