Whether a court-appointed criminal defense counsel violates a defendant's constitutional right to effective assistance of counsel by forcing the defendant to choose between direct appeal or post-conviction relief, thereby precluding unitary review of both direct and collateral claims

No question identified. : The Petitioner RESPECTFULLY REQUESTS the following; qa) An extension of 60 days to February 12, 2023 to submit a Petition for a writ of certiorari in the attached two state cases. (2) Leave to mitigate costs by consolidating the two petitions into one Petition for Certiorari. (3) To proceed on standard 8.5 x 11 copy paper. (4) To proceed in forma pauperis. (A Copy of the IFP Application and Affidavit is Attached) The attached two cases include (1) the Consolidated Superior Court of Pennsylvania Opinion at Commonwealth v. Donahue, Nos. 1168 MDA 2018, 920 MDA 2019, 1179 MDA 2019, 1582 MDA 2019, 589 MDA 2020, 947 MDA 2020, 502 MDA 2021, 182 MDA 2022 (Pa. Super. Ct. Mar. 9, 2023). (Attachment A.2) The Petitioner was denied Allowance of Appeal by the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania at Commonwealth v. Donahue, No. 153 MAL 2028, 154 MAL 2023, 155 MAL 2028, 156 MAL 2023, 157 MAL 2023, 158 MAL 2023, 1 59 MAL 2028, 160 MAL 2028, (Pa. Sept. 12, 2023). (Attachment A.1); and Page 2 of 15 5. (2) the Consolidated Superior Court of Pennsylvania Opinion at Commonwealth v. Donahue, No. 1876 MDA 2018, 1647 MDA 2019, 566 MDA 2021, 743 MDA 2022, (Pa. Super. Ct. Mar. 9, 2023) (Attachment B.2) The Petitioner was denied Allowance of Appeal by the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania at Commonwealth v. Donahue, No. 183 MAL 2023, 184 MAL 2028, 185 MAL 2023, 186 MAL 2023, (Pa. Sept. 12, 2023). (Attachments B.1.1 B.1.4) The Petitioner intends to only “present issues of importance beyond the particular facts and parties involved”. (Guide For Prospective ifp Petitioners For Writs Of Certiorari, [2 ) The issues the Petitioner wishes to present are prevalent in both state cases below and likely to arise in similar cases throughout the US well into the future. 6. I. The issues being raised by the Petitioner are the following; In states that offer unitary review of direct appeal and post conviction relief matters,' when an appellant’s court appointed counsel gives the appellant a choice to accept either choosing between direct appeal or PCRA or forfeiting representation by counsel, is the appellant entitled to review of the portion of the ‘ In Pennsylvania, Post Conviction Relief Act (PCRA) Page 3 of 15 unitary review that he was wrongly denied by counsel, either by state appellate court review nunc pro tunc or through federal habeas corpus review nunc pro tunc? (I.a) In both of the cases below, the court appointed counsels for each case forced the appellant to choose between either direct review or collateral review and did so despite their knowledge of the fact that state common law precedent granted the appellant a right to simultaneously pursue a unitary review of both direct appeal and collateral issues. (Com. v. Holmes, 79 A.3d 562, 621 Pa. 595 (2018); Commonwealth v. Delgros, 183 A.3d 352, 646 Pa. 27 (2018)) In the Dauphin County case, it was the court appointed counsel who denied the Petitioner access to unitary review by forcing him to choose either direct appeal or PCRA. In the Luzerne County case, it was the trial court, the court appointed counsel and the Attorney General’s office that denied the Petitioner access to unitary review by forcing him to choose between direct appeal or PCRA. (L.b) This question has not been addressed by the Supreme Court of the United States and raises the federal question of whether or not a court appointed counsel can deny representation on matters for which Page 4 of 15 the counsel was specifically appointed under Pa.R.Crim.P. 904(C). (Attachment H) The Petitioner avers that the Court must extend the constraints of Ross v. Varano, 712 F.3d 784 (3d Cir. 2018), United States v. Cronic, 466 U.S. 648 (1984) and Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) to this circumstance despite the fact that the Petitioner maxed out his sentence prior to the completion of the direct appeal, which served to deny him access to PCRA in both cases per 18 Pa. C.S. §9543(a)(D@); “$9543. Eligibility for relief. (a) Ge