Whether a postconviction appellate court can create a bar to self-representation without exception or discretionary review of merits

Self representation for a postconviction collateral appeal was denied applying People v. Scott as a policy which is at loggerheads with actual innocence claims case law which is unconcerned with threats to judicial resources, finality, and comity, a conflict which has not been resolved. There needs to be a review of Feretta yet to be extended to self representation on appeal pursuant to case law that has sketchy conflicting support in determining that the subsequently created court of appeals as a check on trials is less important after trial in view of the State court self-representation bar test or lack of test. There are due process and equal protection issues where civil appeals may file self represented while postconviction appeal considered civil in nature by the court may not file in propria persona plus the lack of consideration never given to attorney imped iments or the adequacy of self representation. 1. Can a postconviction appellate court create by case law a bar to self-representation without exception that does not consider nor make a discre tionary review of the merits of a leave to file in propri persona regarding the issue of adequacy and/or im pediments to finding adequate appellate counsel? 2. Did the California courts abuse their discretion and/or have a sua sponte duty to make an assessment of a leave to file in propria persona rather than merely applying a bar to self representation without discre tionary considering of the circumstances and under lying claim required by due process particularly innocence claims as an overriding case law? ii 3. Whether there was an abuse of discretion violating the first, fifth, six and/or fourteenth amend ments when California Supreme Court and Court of appeal bars self-representation for collateral appeals without the court considering petitioner impediments and circumstances including there was no appellate attorney to file an actual innocence appeal further coupled with evidence that appellant could provide adequate self representation? 4. Whether equal protection of the 14th amend ment is violated when the state creates an appellate court policy (by case law) prohibits self-repre sentation on direct appeal but assumes the policy extends to postconviction collateral appeals which is consider civil in nature and far removed from the criminal case creating an as applied policy which is in conflict with the state permitting civil appeals by self-represented which is unresolved policy conflict? 5. Does the state courts violate Fourteenth Amendment equal protect clause and be allowed avoid addressing the Sixth amendment protection to self representation at every stage of the proceedings by ruling solely on the fourteenth amendment where substantial rights (historic and codified) are at issues conflicting with policy bar to self representation? Are the same violations more pronounced if the self representation bar is grounded in being outweigh by efficacy and adequacy of counsel which basis is pure speculation that would it fail the substantial evidence test particularly in extending a direct appeal policy to collateral postconviction appeals which are considered civil in nature for which self representation is allowed but there is a filing fee ? iii 6. The State courts nor the United States Supreme court has addressed whether actual innocence claims that disregard efficacy and court re sources burdens overrides California case law that bars self-representation on the same grounds given the California Supreme Court upheld the application denying review while neither court reviewed the merits of the appeal? 7. Whether the state and federal court policy from case law violates self-representation due pro cess protections of Feretta (self-represent) pursuant to the sixth amendment which should be extended to protect against unconstitutional trials by in propria persona appeal rather than a vanishing due process and autonomy right that only appellate counsel can appeal (exe