Daniel Lynn Johnson v. Eric Guerrero, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division

QUESTION No. 1 WHETHER THE COURT OF APPEALS SHOULD HAVE ISSUED OR GRANTED A CERTIFICATE of appealability to appeal the district court's procedural ruling that the petitioner’s ineffective assistance OF COUNSEL CLAIM REGARDING TRIAL COUNSEL'S FAILURE TO CONVEY THE STATE'S/PLEA OFFER WAS' PROCEDURALLY DEFAULTED ANlp UNEXHAUSTED BECAUSE THE CLA1H WAS NOT RAISED ON APPEAL OR IN A POST-CONVICTION COLLiCTERAL PROCEEDING WHEN THERE WAS CAUSE FOR THE PROCEDURAL DEFAULT UNDER MARTINEZ v. RYAN. 132 S.Ct. 1309 (2012) AND TREVINO V. THALER. 13> S.Ct. 1911 (2013). JURISTS OF REASON WOULD FIND IT DEBATABLE WHETHER THE DISTRICT COURT WAS CORRECT IN ITS PROCEDURAL RULING UNDER SLACK v.MeDAKIEL. 120 S.Ct. 1595 (2000). QUESTION No. 2 WHETHER THE COURT OF APPEALS SHOULD HAVE ISSUED OR GRANTED A CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY TO APPEAL THE DISTRICT COURT’S ASSESSMENT OF THE PETITIONER’S INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL ■CLAIM REGARDING TRIAL COUNSEL'S FAILURE TO CONVEY THE STATE'S PLEA OfttfER WAS WITHOUT MERITS WHEN THE PETITIONER’S SUPPLEMENTAL petition containeduuncontroverted sworn facts consistuting some OBJECTIVE EVIDENCE THAT HE WOULD HAVE ACCEPTED THE PLEA OFFER THAT SUPPORTED i\ FINDING OF PREJUDICE AND THAT TRIAL COUNSEL PERFORMED DEFICIENTLY BY FAILING TO INFORM HIM OF THE STATE'S PLEA OFFER UNDER STRICKLAND V. WASHINGTON. 104 S.Ct. 2052 (1934) AND MISSOURI v. FRYE. 132 S.Ct. 1399 (2012). REASONABLE JURISTS WOULD FIND THE DISTRICT-COURT’S ASSESSMENT OF THE CLAIM DEBATABLE OR WRONG UNDER SLACK v. MeDANIEL. 120 S.Ct. 1595 (2000). QUESTION No. 3 WHETHER THE COURT OF APPEALS SHOULD HAVE ISSUED OR GRANTED A CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY TO APPEAL THE DISTRICT COURT’S FAILUURE TO CONSIDER AND ADDRESS THE PETITIONER’S INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL CLAIM REGARDING TRIAL COUNSEL,:S FAILURE TO CONVEY THE STATE’S PLEA OFFER UNDER MARTINEZ v. RYAN. 132 S.Ct. 1309 (2012) AND TREVINO v. THALER. 133 S.Ct. 1911 (2013). REASONABLE JURISTS WOULD FIND THE DISTRICT COURT’S JUDICIAL FAILURE TO CONSIDER AND ADDRESS THE CLAIM UNDER MARTINEZ/TREVI.NO DEBATABLE OR WRONG UNDER SLACK v. MCDANIEL. 120 S.Ct. 1595 (2000).