Whether the Ninth Circuit's reliance on Chavez II was erroneous

questions for review { —_--} ».-—. 4_Did the. Minth Circuit eer by Following Chavez. v.Graovich,4aFHth LOG} (9th Cire 2028) +0 decide that “the state appellate court could have under 2% U.S.C, % 225441 “that Acizonas of-pight PCR procedure Satisfied Anders and its progeny*: ~ A) where, Arizona Law dees not raquire a courts Anders review™ and Oo finding of whether the case is frivolous, at all, bub only an_adivdicatio a of the elaims fatsed in the pro per petition for when counsel submits a an Andess briet* alleging “ne colerable claims’; and fn _-—-—--_ B) inaway thet contlieds with Lammiav. Batkel, WS Pdd £62 (Aciz. 1996) | on the question of whether “advisoty counsel” is or is not required — to hciet. viable issues* found.inthe pro pec petitions _| _ QB Did the Supreme Court depart from the “obvious goal of Anders* enunciated ~ in Smith uv. Bobbing, 58S 5.254, 218 (2000) to permit state procedures | that may except & courts Anders review* and finding of whether a ca se_is frivolous in any. first appeal as_of=ctight.on the 4. basis that: ~ A) a single #ier review of the appellate record for Ccolorable claims, net merely arguable claims, is_conducted by counselj and. __] a. woe |B) counsel does not withdtaw_atter filing an Anders brief, but |. temains as “advisory counsel® and available to brief Viabbe issues~ ee found Only in the pro. pet patitiog. LO the appealis a PCR proceeding for pleading defendants_as___| __.__. opposed to a direct appeal for trial defendants. this petition, . Sanchez, makes the following disclosure: 1) Mr, Sanchez, is not a subsidiary ot affiliate of a publicly owned ees fporatio . 2 hece is no publicly oiuned cospotation, Hot a pach bo the appeal, that has a financial interest in Hre outcome. of this COSA. By: hari Saati Michael Sonchez,# 240235 eT Potitioner, Lropeat. AS.P.C. Kingman L Heachvea. Uni f.0. Box 6639 a : Kmamaun,AZ 86404 STATEMENT OF