Whether Alabama's procedural rules and courts' rulings have denied review of petitioner's Sixth Amendment ineffective assistance of counsel claims, warranting equitable tolling

QUESTIONS PRESENTED 1. Alabama Rule of Criminal Procedure (ARCrimP) 32.2(d) states "any claim that counsel was ineffective must be raised as soon as practicable, either at trial, on direct appeal, or in the first Rule 32 petition, whichever is applicable." In light of Alabama's motion for new trial, and other rules such as ARCrimP 32.2(c) "certificate of judgment" date causing out-of-time issues because it is a week or more after the AEDPA §2254 habeas filing deadline are Alabama petitioners actively denied a review of their 6th Amendment right to effective assistance of defense counsel when ineffective assistance of direct appeal counsel and procedure default denies a review of meritorious ineffective assistance of counsel (IAC) of defense counsel claims until the State's Rule 32 petition process warrant equitable tolling for the §2254? 2. Per ARCrimP 32.5 a Rule 32 must be adjudicated in the trial court. A judge that did not preside over the trial did not specifically rule on any IAC claims, nor hold evidentiary hearings, but then the Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals (ACCA) sua sponte ruled. In light of the ACCA procedurally defaulting Petitioner's Rule 32, but also rendering a "merits" determination sua sponte on direct appeal counsel using Strickland v. Washington, 466 US 668 (1984) without an evidentiary hearing, was a "reasonable" ruling when the trial transcript proves the direct appeal counsel's legal filing was frivolous and erroneous? 3. When the State deceives, tricks, and otherwise impedes petitioners through State rules and laws plus lack of access to the courts from prison denying any review of their IAC claims until the Federal habeas process are petitioners allowed equitable tolling for redress of their Sth, 6th, and 14th Amendment claims? 4. Have the above cumulative constraints of the State's direct appeal and post-conviction process, and the rulings by the Alabama Courts, United States (US) District Court and Eleventh Circuit, abrogated Petitioner's rights under the Sth, 6th and 14th Amendments and thus mandate equitable tolling since no court has properly ruled on any of the Constitutionally guaranteed 6th Amendment IAC claims on either her two defense counsels or the direct appeal counsel? Kutschenreuter v Warden 3/24/2024 ;