that appellate defense counsel had reason to believe that such relief would be likely to succeed or that defendant indicated an interest in such efforts. Therefore, we conclude that appellate counsel’s failure to so advise defendant was not constitutionally deficient. D. Postconviction Counsel Defendant next contends that his right to counsel was violated by the trial court’s failure to appoint postconviction counsel. We disagree. There is no federal or state constitutional right to counsel in Crim. P. 35 postcon-viction proceedings. Duran v. Price, 868 P.2d 375 (Colo.1994); Brinklow v. Riveland, 773 P.2d 517 (Colo.1989); People v. Silva, 131 P.3d 1082, 2005 WL 1300860 (Colo.App. No. 04CA0661, June 2, 2005); People v. Ray, 801 P.2d 8 (Colo.App.1990); cf. People v. Valdez, supra (<HOLDING>); but see People v. Hickey, 914 P.2d 377
recognizing that where a state prisoner declines to pursue certiorari in the united states supreme court that petitioners conviction is not final  until  after the time for filing a petition for certiorari with the supreme court has passed recognizing the right to counsel on appeal recognizing right to counsel under colo const art ii  16 and car 51a for purpose of preparing and filing application for certiorari recognizing that a criminal defendants right to counsel is the right to the effective assistance of counsel recognizing the right to petition for writ of certiorari as a form of appellate review