Did the state court err in holding that the petitioner's Sixth Amendment right to effective assistance of counsel was not violated?

QUESTIONS PRESENTED Petitioner, who was victim of long-term sexual abuse by his stepfather, was convicted of aggravated sexual assault and sentenced to 65 years in the Texas Department of Criminal Justice. During the time that he was awaiting trial, Petitioner became embréiled in a conflict with his court-appointed counsel and refused to communicate with his attorney or anyone from his office in any way. Prior to trial, at numerous pretrial % hearings, that attorney made a point of putting it in the record that because of Petitioner's refusal to communicate with him, he was not doing the things that he would normally do to prepare for trial, but he failed to withdraw from Petitioner's case even when the trial court. said that his withdrawal would be permitted. Ultimately, Petitioner was forced into a trial with this attorney, who failed to put on a single witness, and failed te: present this crucial evidence of Petitioner's history of being sexually abused as mitigating evidence during punishment. The state habeas court made findings of fact and conclusions of law, but these findings and conclusions don't address the issues that Petitioner raised. The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals (TCCA) denied relief without written order, which requires this Court to ‘look througH"that denial to the trial court's findings of fact and conclusions of law as the basis for the denial. The questions presented are: I. Did the state court err when it held that Petitioner's Sixth Amendment right to the éffective assistance of counsel was not violated where Petitioner was forced into a trial with an attorney whom he did not trust, : had lost confidence in, and absolutely refused to communicate with? i . QUESTIONS PRESENTED-Continued II. Does the state court's decision-that counsel was not : ineffective for failing to investigate, develop and present evidence of prior sexual abuse at the hands of his stepfather, and its effects on him, as mitigating evidence at this Court's clearly established law, as well as the decisions of the state courts? Li ; RELATED CASES * State v. Adkins, No. D-1-DC-i3-904105, 427th District Court of Travis County. Judgment entered April 18, 2014. * Adkins v. State, No. 03-14-00285-CR, Third Court of Appeals. Judgment entered February 2, 2017. * Adkins v. State, No. PD-0268-17, Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. Judgment entered June 2, 2017. * Ex parte Adkins, No. WR-94,088-01, Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. Judgment entered December 21, 2022. : 1ii