Question not identified.

No question identified. : Petitioner was accused of Custions Present shea wot) vehicle possesion of @ stolen ‘faabe acer unlawful possesion of a bs dggrsvvate wntlaotyl restraint cn Vide Lashinac ZA. Me “a pests of & witapon by a felon Tinos, Ton later oppell to the 4 ‘att of apueals ia the slate af Dilan : Yebtioner Aad never heen to trat belore. swasnt “ppea’s ia the state af Tihaois U unahle to hele pick hes F t: SA WADE. Sure: what & sidebar was. Which was i to rep piek hes ary, Nso told bis trial counse/ 10 ask questi | (ch was sale vis ah ‘al to Yale the shnd when asked. deeause ini fs not BN Ne “fo prove, ond a reasonable ab j ‘ the burden of eat. Then at trial ti Ital alter b v aubf 4 Person was guilt, , andl that we were Showed ractectiveness to help od, he / iL hy ge rgnsréil tetuall bas whi j cutionec later finds: out that his mir ‘alas. j Stode police pcining Di “ak dish oP appeals caine veh my fhe Tas 3 tn , ee V "Th ould he vacated which does also showin as a me act one clause cos Rawidment VI. “Then appeals Counse] (Oefense) goes on to ar ] th ad tral was \nelSectiye te joner sets in & small coom Aor hours and raid autstisned of ducing questions , if he nadeestood petitioner ther says no! Tlinoss state shee nayue Misael mgs aed coked ask petitioner what Miranda Warning tetoneeons wd ga pent te bit conbaves aad incor ree answer, Slate pohice ten lit hin Viiaw he is ten jolhouk explninin me oF with an with pefibiner esting whats soi on andl being told to hid on wirt gone dete fe con liat rng ane caphining nylnng when told be dont? wndetstaud and giving the wron wisyder A heat wl nnicanda id MHI Ade tant the state polite tontinut id di ‘A on lim ih the west "Ss wad get he wader stobd in whith Haally Just Says fe shill without vnderstandi We me Mth f ask for counsel which gets ube agent im, Us Const Hawadnent vA mirande V Aizen, 384 US 436 Che) wrre all viol hol here, Wht uit WIVIg XIV on Courise) was imefletive Wee oes ces Woh abo weal sea v5 Const. Amendment XIV the hate ro reasenable doubt. Which the shote dont hay ony gl evel onalice of oer ase beyandh a Petitioner tomate any of the erives hove. Ae which the state ‘ah f shewnt that a Gaia person (A) wheeler) that give contradicting statements aid has il th i ” ri b, commit these offenses, being the oly peon inwolutd Lnowila eee Ol a ey the pthhioner had a gun Macoupin Ce Dep. Reger Dial Vind & Farm on the wie oF Ate It a well traveled he Nude after petitioner has Sven ‘al gel for days with no prints or DNA. Seng ang could have put iF thert, Then at Erial Sorensie exput ee bohishies jhat dont tly teh which ‘s Hot yeought vp on ag due to eiicad inetretive covase|, hud at trial Hag PP clwate cha'a of custody duriag Peenewe dont ilecectian defnse Conasd aeuer ob yeets. Which Ase would shave iaellective raurse] hee vw US Const, Hmead VI lath the cour at appeals sees Counses was eftechve anc petihoner wos pro ond a reasonable Nan and tad iP wurande. Rights were not violated wtboust he so pert eg : . . be : “ep the Follovoing questo ) _ nw Ore presented ya yt use the contradict Oe ; ave anything b icting Stat : tonbraat his olin fy! te Support mn mod as plai atd si jai dhubt Oh So how OC 1s Wy sb claus iM hel ed erro’ byt . port the lav 4 PELSOUS yan e to tind cH ofher with im. US. Const ‘h i, cont redichin & person guil; nesses d anst. ends Sate wilty fe ) jn in claim vo walter it @ per eat XIV _ teens andl beet i eye TON FY er sort TW everything ‘h, wot om there Avan dn says he ad yidecstand or if th 7 nl haraie Wouldlat hi te f a) Are sonsdbled hh My i, ihey heal / Winn, Ciohts being “a intelliqautly give owing ly 4c in whick 4 iy brown in vad sia {dee 4 valid univle! at une We said | quardless of sayity T widerst g evecyTking gplag on 0 your oe didnt wider sud and cotand ann & we nisul W ’ beg asked [Loving ud dfelhgently? Mi nobody ever cy lai ih as givin pnd 4 Becghucs v Th J roa) ba 3H tte ed | could ths be Would Me ompson DO US 570, 384-8" (1366) Mirna, 394 DS