Whether prejudice is presumed when a court-appointed attorney fails to follow state 'adoption' procedures for an indigent defendant's appeal rights and fails to consult the defendant about potential appealable issues

QUESTIONS PRESENTED In the Court's Holding that prejudice is presumed regardless of an appeal waiver in a state criminal case, Garza v. Idaho, 586 U.S. 232 (2019) also mean that prejudice is presumed when the court-appointed attorney fails to follow the State's "adoption" of the Anders procedure to protect an indigent defendant's. right to an “as of right appeal"? Consult the indigent defendant? Can an indigent defendant be faulted for not filing a direct-~ review appeal and thus barred from review of record-based claims? Can a State's highest court align itself with the minority in a 8-10 majority of Circuit Court's of Appeals that have applied the presumed prejudice in the Holding of Garza v. Idaho, 586 U.S. 232, footnote # 3? Does the failure to consult an indigent defendant about possible appealable issues and fail to follow the State's statutory procedure designed to protect an indigent defendant's right to appeal and right to counsel on appeal violate the United States Constitution Amendment Six and Fourteen? *Petitioner cannot get relief from any other court based on the , above question/issues.