Whether South Dakota's statutory appointment of counsel for indigent prisoners in habeas proceedings violates the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection and Due Process guarantees through the state supreme court's intrusion into the attorney-client relationship

QUESTIONS PRESENTED 1. Does South Dakota’s position, in its statutory required appointment of counsel for indigent prisoners in habeas proceedings (SDCL § 21-27-4) there is no state constitutional right to effective habeas counsel; the cause of ineffectiveness being the South Dakota Supreme Court’s intrusion into the attorney-client relationship and interference with habeas representation —an independent constitutional violation, violate the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection . and Due Process guarantee? 2. Does State Supreme Court’s intrusion into the attorney-client relationship and interference with court appointed habeas counsel’s representation in a manner that “involves such a probability that prejudice will result that it is deemed inherently lacking in due process, permitting an unknowing, involuntary, unconstitutional guilty plea to go uncorrected, call for the exception, collateral estoppel not applying, petitioner not having had a full and fair opportunity to litigate the issues in the earlier case? . 3. Is the replacement counsel’s ineffectiveness in Gregory v. State habeas proceeding, properly before the court as a component of the claim ‘South Dakota Supreme Court intruded . into the attorney-client relationship, interfered with habeas representation, counsel’s ineffectiveness the requisite prejudice component of the claim’?