Whether Shinn v. Ramirez's holding petitioner 'at fault' for postconviction counsel's appellate errors gives indigent post-conviction appellants autonomy over the appeal

QUESTION PRESENTED 1.) WHETHER SHINN V_RAMIREZ’S HOLDING PETITIONER “AT FAULT” FOR POSTCONVICTION COUNSEL'S APPELLATE ERRORS GIVE INDIGENT POST-CONVICTION APPELLANTS AUTONOMY OVER THE APPEAL ; PROVIDING THEM OPTIONS TO DISMISS APPELLATE COUNSEL, RETAIN NEW COUNSEL, OR BE PRO SE IF FEDERAL ISSUES OF INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE ARE NOT PROPERLY BEING PRESENTED BY COUNSEL ON APPEAL, AND IF SO, DID THE TENN. COURT OF CRIM. APP. AND SUP. CT. OF TENN.’S DENIAL OF INDIGENT PETITIONER'S MOTION TO REPLACE POST-CONVICTION COUNSEL, RETAIN NEW COUNSEL, OR PROCEED PRO SE VIOLATE THE DUE PROCESS AND EQUAL PROCTECTION CLAUSES OF THE XIVTH AMENDMENT UNDER GRIFFIN V_ ILLINOIS AND ROSS V MOFFITT? Il.) WHETHER PETITIONER’S OBJECTION IN HIS MOTION TO REPLACE COUNSEL, RETAIN NEW COUNSEL OR PROCEED PRO SE PROVIDING EVIDENCE OF A CONFLICT OF INTEREST WITH APPELLATE COUNSEL GAVE PETITIONER THE XIVTH AMENDMENT DUE PROCESS AND EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSE RIGHTS HAVE HIM REMOVED DUE TO THAT CONFLICE OF INTEREST, AND IF SO, DID TENNESSEE APPELLATE COURTS ERR IN DENYING PETITIONER'S MOTION? ii PARTIES TO PROCEEDINGS BELOW In the Criminal Court of Davidson County, Tennessee, the Petitioner was named as: Petitioner and : the State of Tennessee as: Respondent. In the Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals, Petitioner was named as: Appellant and The State of Tennessee as: Appellee. In the , Supreme Court of Tennessee the Petitioner was named as: Petitioner and the State of Tennessee as: Appellee. In this Court, Petitioner is named as: Petitioner, and The State of Tennessee as: Respondent.