Preliminary MemoranduM

            1.  Summary:  Pro se petr argues his conviction denied him rights "guaranteed by the Constitution and the Bill of Rights by the United States Government," specifically his rights under the "4th, 5th and 14th amendments of the Bill of Rights."  Essentially some sort of half-baked procedural due process claim:  Petr apparently believes he should be entitled to appointment of counsel because of his indigence.  Splitless, clearly meritless, no published opinion below; also likely procedurally waived and Teague-barred.  DENY.

            2.  Facts and Decisions Below:  Petr was convicted by a jury of breaking and entering, and sentenced to five years in prison.  He apparently failed to appeal, but eventually petitioned for habeas before the Fla Sup Ct.  Fla Sup Ct said:  Upon consideration of the habeas petn, we deny relief.

            3.  Contentions:  My rights were violated by the tct's failure to appoint a lawyer for me.  "The United States Supreme Court says I am entitled to be represented by Counsel."

            4.  Discussion:  Petr's claim is clearly foreclosed by established precedent.  See Betts v. Brady, 316 U. S. 455 (1942).  Moreover, petr alleges no split; there's no opinion of any sort below; petr's failure to appeal means his claim is probably procedurally barred; and petr is asking for a new rule.  Finally, it's clear that the relief petr asks will impose astronomical burdens on the judicial system.

            5.  Recommendation:  Clear DENY.

            Response Waived.

August 8, 1993                                                 Volokh                                                    Opin. in Petn.