Whether the Indiana Supreme Court is violating due process by foreclosing both State and Federal review by failing to allow the development of an ineffective assistance of initial collateral review counsel claim in a state court proceeding as required by Shinn, Martinez, and Trevino

In Martinez v. Ryan , 566 U.S. 1 (2012) , this Court held that in states which require inef fective assistance of trial counsel claims to be raised in initialreview collateral proceedings, those claims that have been procedurally defaulted in state post -conviction proceedings by lack of effective state collateral -review counsel will not be defaulted if they can meet an equivalent standard of review that would have been applied if the initial -collateral proceedings were brought on direct appeal. Benjamin Ritchie has brain damage caused by prenatal exposure to alcohol. Because trial counsel were ineffective, the State told the jury that Ritchie did not have any fetal alcohol syndromes. Initial -collateral review counsel did not address this ineffect iveness. Martinez applies to Indiana, where ineffective assistance of trial counsel claims are funneled toward collateral review. Brown v. Brown , 847 F.3d 502 (7th Cir. 2017). In this case, by a 22 vote, the Indiana Supreme Court failed to properly apply Martinez , and denied Ritchie’s request to litigate a successive post conviction petition. The denying Justices applied Baum v. State, 533 N.E.2d 1200 (Ind. 1989) , and decided Ritchie could not meet the threshold showing of a reasonably possibility that initialcollateral review counsel was not present for a procedurally fair proceeding. I. Whether the Indiana Supreme Court Is Violating Due Process by foreclosing both State and Federal Review by failing to allow the development of an ineffective assistance of initial 3 collateral review counsel claim in a state court proceeding as required by Shinn, Martinez, and Trevino.