Whether the trial court had a duty to put on the record a colloquy that the defendant knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily waived his right to testify

QUESTION(S) PRESENTED LL, When the Court andteial Counsel Knew Ine defencant fad demancect ta testy and they refosecl him +het o taint , ched +Hnre Court pave a duty to pet on the recotd colloguy tnet te clefendant Knousmaly, Tnntelligentty, and Voluntarty wauwes Wis riqht fo testi to preserve a Keer Ania 2 a) . Because the curcetts ave Split, is there a conshtutene| Piaht for cellogury +e be on the yecord to wcaave dhe Fondamenteal cus toteshh,é Z.. Where teial Counsel refusect 40 call the defendant ta test wolhe Laas dememnding +o te sith, emel MWe teshwieny wes matemal ta Quilt or dnocence , uses counse| weSfectwe? 3% Does ne Nuvi Civrcint clecisten not +0 qrant a ceric Gicate o£ appeolatalh on Habeas Corpus qroond’s One and Wwo [Actual Wnnocence aud chenial of Ine erat Aa tenis |, Cant let ~ Usila Ants covets decistens in LOZADA V, DEEDS ,499 U.S. 4BO © (1991) (per curtam); and Miller EL v. Cockrell, 537 U.S.327_ (2003) when Mervick made a suostantal showing of ne dlenial of a constrtuhonal eight and other state and Fecleve| courks Nave resalvedt the same (ssvues afferenny. ~ 2 yo . IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI Petitioner respectfully prays that a writ of certiorari issue to review the judgment below. OPINIONS BELOW bx] For cases from federal courts: The opinion of the United States court of appeals appears at