Did the Eleventh Court of Appeals deny Petitioner's due process by ordering a pro se response under Anders when the appeal was not an Anders proceeding?

ONE: ioner's Due Did the Eleventh Court of Appeals, at Eastland, Texas, deny Petit Process to an appeal in the normal course by ordering Petitioner se response pursuant to Ander's, when his appeal was not an Anderto file a pro 's proceeding? QUESTION TWO: Did retained ^Appellate Counsel render ineffective assistance by filing an An-.', der's Brief misguiding Petitioner to file a pro se response pursuant to Ander's and not a brief in the normal course of an appeal, or hire new counsel. Denying effective assistance, due process, and forfeiture of an entitled proceeding? QUESTION THREE: Did trial Counsel render ineffective assistance for failing to investigate, in terview, depose, and prepare defense first witness, Ariana Hernandez, which e elicited extraneous offense testimony, denying a fundamentally fair trial and punishment? QUESTION FOUR: Did trial Counsel render ineffective assistance by failing to obj admission of the audid recording v/as forcing Petitioner to choose tutional right over another, violating his constitutional rights mentally fair trial and punishment?ect that the one constito a fundaPage ii