Did the Wyoming Supreme Court apply federal rules of evidence correctly and deny Mr. Hilyard's Fourteenth Amendment right to effective assistance of counsel?

QUESTION(S) PRESENTED I. DID THE WYOMING SUPREME COURT APPLY AND FOLLOW FEDERAL : RULES OF EVIDENCE CORRECTLY? Il. WAS THE WYOMING SUPREME COURT’S DECISION ARBITRARY, CAPRICIOUS, OR OTHERWISE NOT IN ACCORDANCE WITH FEDERAL LAW? II. WAS MR. HILYARD DENIED HIS FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT RIGHT TO EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL ON APPEAL ... NO STATE SHALL MAKE OF ENFORCE ANY LAW WHICH SHALL ... DENY TO ANY PERSON WITHIN [ITS] JURISDICTION THE EQUAL PROTECTION OF THE LAWS? : IV. DOES © STRICKLAND V. WASHINGTON REQUIRE — FURTHER INTERPRETATION AS WYOMING HAS IMPLIED BY RELYING ON SCHREIBVOGEL V. STATE, A WYOMING DECISION AS OPPOSED TO A U.S.S.C. DECISION? Vv. DO THE NATRONA COUNTY DISTRICT COURT AND/OR THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR THE STATE OF WYOMING HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO OVERTURN THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT PRECEDENT IN BUCK V. DAVIS, 137 S.CT. 759 (2017); TREVINO V. THALER, 133 S.CT. 1911 (2013); AND MARTINEZ V. RYAN, 566 U.S. 1 (2012); WHERE THE SUPREME COURT DECIDED THAT A PROCEDURAL DEFAULT WOULD NOT BAR A CLAIM OF INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF TRIAL COUNSEL; WHEN COLLATERAL PROCEEDING WAS THE FIRST PLACE TO CHALLENGE A CONVICTION ON THE GROUND OF INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE? Page ii of 43 ;