Question not identified

QUESTIONS PRESENTED I. The Right to Counsel. The Sixth Amendment guarantees criminal defendant’s the right to effective assistance of counsel. Medina’s counsel failed to investigate and prepare for a speedy trial hearing, then incorrectly thought speedy trial “prejudice was presumed". Because of this, Medina requested alternate defense counsel (ADC) and filed a malpractice complaint. Despite the obvious conflict, the court denied ADC and the claim of ineffective counsel. Did these deficiencies cause a conflict of interest, entitling Medina to ADC? | II. The Right to Speedy Trial. The constitution guarantees defendants the right to speedy trial. Medina’s speedy trial claim was denied on direct appeal because counsel failed to submit evidence proving cell phone data was actually | irretrievable. But Medina provided counsel affidavit’s demonstrating his cell | phone data is unavailable from any other source. So, Barker v. Wingo, prejudice was satisfied, but the district court continually overlooks this evidence. Does the court deny a meritorious claim by ignoring key evidence? | III. Breach of Contract. Plea agreements are contractual and bind the ‘parties, including the court. Medina’s plea agreement promised him the right to | appeal his constitutional speedy trial issue, as raised in his pro se motions. But Medina’s dispositive claim continues to be overlooked in violation of the plea | agreement. Promises must be kept. Does a breach of the terms in the contract | render the plea void with an unfillable promise? | , Page 2 of 19