the petitioner had sought postconviction relief claiming he had been told he would be sentenced to no more than 15 years and that medication he had been given in jail rendered his plea involuntary. Id. at 739. The court did not discuss whether this claim involved “the need for substantial legal research.” Id. at 740. Nevertheless, the court quashed the district court’s decision and remanded the ease to the trial court with instructions that petitioner have counsel appointed and a new evidentia-ry hearing be held. Id. The court explained its decision as follows: Williams’s lack of education and lack of sophistication make clear that he was unable to meet the technical requirements of going forward with the burden of proving his initial allegations, irrespective of the meri DCA 1988) (<HOLDING>). As demonstrated by the facts set forth above
holding that trial court abused its discretion in denying petitioners request for counsel in evidentiary hearing where petitioner had requested counsel and had indicated in his motion that all documents had been prepared by prison law clerk he had only ninthgrade education he had no training in the law and he lacked the skills necessary to participate in hearing holding that where alien was in custody spoke only spanish had limited education and was unfamiliar with this country and its legal procedures in light of his failure to obtain counsel despite his efforts the immigration judge sua sponte if necessary should have continued the hearing so as to provide the petitioner a reasonable time to locate counsel and permit counsel to prepare for the hearing holding that trial courts failure to consider appointing counsel for petitioner in evidentiary hearing was improper where record revealed petitioners lack of education and sophistication petitioner had limited participation in hearing and record indicates that there was abundant doubt raised concerning gordons need for the assistance of counsel holding that petitioner was not entitled to an evidentiary hearing under section 2254e2 on whether his trial counsel was ineffective in failing to seek a fitness hearing holding that trial court erred in denying appointment of counsel where court had no information concerning petitioners education or ability to represent himself petitioner presented no expert testimony concerning competency of defense furnished by trial counsel petitioner did not call alibi witness to testify at hearing and effective crossexamination may have revealed that counsels own problems with federal government interfered with his representation of petitioner