Does Douglas v. California, 372 U.S. 358 (1968), and its progeny, require a state court to advise an indigent defendant of the procedural rules and time limitations governing claims of ineffective assistance of trial counsel in states that require these claims to be raised in an initial-review collateral proceeding?

QUESTION(S) PRESENTED Does Douglas v. California, 372 U.S. 358 (1968), and its progeny, require a state court to advise an indigent defendant of the procedural rules and time limitations governing claims of ineffective assistance of trial counsel in states that require these claims to be raised in an initial-review collateral proceeding?! Whether the U.S. Appeals Court’s order denying Rocha a COA on Ground One based on his failure to exhaust remedies is in conflict with § 2254(b)(1)(A), ©); and O'Sullivan v. Boerckel, 526 U.S. 838 (1999), and whether that conflict is such a departure by a lower court, as to call for an exercise of this Court’s supervisory power? Whether the U.S. Appeals Court’s order denying Rocha a COA on Grounds Two-Eight based on his claims having no merit is in conflict with Martinez v. Ryan, 566 U.S. 1 (2012), and 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1), (2), and whether that conflict is such a departure by a lower court, as to call for an exercise of this Court’s supervisory power?? 1 Rocha believes this is a case of first impression that affects the constitutional rights of thousands of indigent defendants in many states and that the issue should be settled by this Court. 2 In Rocha’s habeas petition, he raised in Grounds One and Two the same underlying claim. In Ground One, the claim is framed as a federal due process claim. In Ground Two, it is framed as an claim. The court’s order denying Rocha a COA stated that Ground One is a federal due process claim not ruled on the merits and unexhausted, and that Ground Two is a state law claim ruled on the merits and exhausted. The U.S. Appeals Court’s order denying Rocha a COA is an oxymoron. ii