Kenneth Ray Marshall v. Dexter Payne, Director, Arkansas Division of Correction

I. Whether the decision of the state court that failed to apply the correct standard of “reasonableness” to assess trial counsel’s conduct under Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) is contrary to and/or involves an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law. 28 U.S.C., § 2254(d)(1)................................................................... pages 7 - 9 A. Whether failure of the state court to extend the “prevailing professional norms" legal principle to state criminal procedure rule implemented to safeguard constitutional right is contrary to and/or involves an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law. Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 369 @ 407 (2000). 28 U.S.C., § 2254(d)(1)......... pages 9-12 II. Whether the decision of the state court to find no violation of Petitioner’s Sixth Amendment right to speedy trial is contrary to and/or an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law Coleman v. Thompson; 501 U.S. 722 (1991). 28 U.S.C., § 2254(d)(1)....................... pages 12-13 A. Whether the failure of the state court to assess trial counsel’s conduct that resulted in violation of Petitioner’s right to speedy trial under correct standard of “reasonableness’ (Strickland, supra) is contrary to and/or involves an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law. 28 U.S.C., § 2254(d)(1)............................... pages 13-15 B. Whether the decision of the state court that no speedy trial violation occurred is an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented in those proceedings. 28 U.S.C., § 2254(d)(2).... pages 15-18 III. Whether the decision of the state court that trial counsel’s performance was not ineffective assistance of counsel is contrary to and/or involves an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law; and too, is an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented in those proceedings. 28 U.S.C., § 2254(d)(1) & (2)............... page 18 A. Whether the decision of the state court that trial counsel’s acts of commission and ommission were not “cause" for violation of Petitioner’s right to speedy trial is contrary to and/or involves an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law; and is an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented in those proceedings. 28 U.S.C., § 2254(d)(1) & (2)........................................ pages 18-23 B. Whether the decision of the state court that Petitioner did not suffer “prejudice” as the result of trial counsel’s “deficient” performance resulting in violation of right to speedy trial is contrary to and/or involves an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law. 28 U.S.C., § 2254(d)(1)................................................................. pages 23 - 25 C. Whether this Court should accord deference to the findings of the state court or trial counsel’s conduct. 28 U.S.C., § 2254(d)(1); Strickland, supra.................................................................................... page 25

1. Whether the findings of the state court that are contrary to and/or involve an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law should be accorded deference. 28 U.S.C., § 2254(d)(1); Williams v. Taylor, supra............................................................... pages 25 - 26

2. Whether trial counsel’s conduct that was below that of reasonable competent professional assistance should be accorded deference. Strickland, supra............................................ pages 27-29 IV. Whether Petitioner was denied full review by the federal courts below on his constitutional claims hereon. Thompson v. Coleman, 501 U.S. 722 @ 736 (1991)......... ....................................................... ....... pages 29 - 30 A. Whether Petitioner was denied due process and opportunity for review on the merits hereon by the Circuit Court for reasons of circumstances beyond his control........................................................ pages 31 - 32 n