Did the courts err in finding that petitioner failed to state a claim of the denial of a constitutional right where the state failed to provide Brady material in the form of a jailhouse snitch letter until a post-trial motion for a new trial hearing?

QUESTION(S) PRESENTED 4. DID THE FOORTI CEQCOTY COLOKT OF APPEALS ERR Ly FINOLING TAT PEVEVTOWER FALLED TO STATE A CLATNY OF TNE. DENEAL OF A CONSTLTVILONAL GRERE TRE STATE FALLED TO PROVIDE BRADY MATER TAL TW THE FORM OF QA LENTER | FROM A JAILYOUSE SITY ONTIL | A POST-TRIAL, MOTOWN FOR A NEW TRIAL WEARING 2 & WERE THE STATE YD FEDEQAL COORT S' DECTSEONS CONTRARY TO GIG | 138, BAGLEY, BRADY ALD WAROWE V, LLEAMULS DERE THE STATE FATE) TO DESCLOSE MATERAAL EMQGaainENT EVIDENCE TW) THE FORM OF A OATLROOSE SNITCY LEXYTER ANDO TESTAMOWN WAS THAT PEVICV TONER | CONFESSED TO RW \ 3. DID THE STATE AND FEDERAL COURTS ERR LN FINDING TAAT TREAL COONSEL RENDERED EFFEC TIVE ASSUSTANCE VLAERE WE FALLED TO TNTERVTEW MICAAEL JONES ANO CALL WEN AS & | WITWES 2