Whether the prosecutor engaged in prosecutorial misconduct by having the petitioner's codefendant testify that he was not promised any leniency in exchange for his testimony against the petitioner

QUESTION(S) PRESENTED GROUND ONE When the State had Petitioner's codefendant testify against Petitioner and claim that the codefendant had received no promises of leniency in exchange for his testimony against Petitioner, yet when, prior to Petitioner's trial, the codefendant purportedly entered an “open plea" to Capital Murder,but the statutorily mandated sentence of automatic life without parole was not imposed,and instead, following his testimony against Petitioner, he was brought back to court, his guilty plea to Capital Murder was vacated, and he was allowed to enter a new plea to murder and sentenced to twenty-years, oO did the prosecutor engage in prosecutorial misconduct, in viola. tion of Petitioner's right to Due Process of Law, by having the Petitioner's codefendant testify that he was not promised any leniency in exchange for his testimony against Petitioner? RB Vi & XIV amends. U.S. Const. GROUND TWO If the State's appellate courts incorporates the State's "accomPlice witness rule" in its analysis of the legal sufficiency of the evidence under Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (1979), is the federal habeas court, in its analysis of the "reasonableness" of the State appellate court's decision, also required to consider the State's accomplice-witness rule in regard to the federal legal ': Sufficiency review? VI & XIV amends. U.S. Const. GROUND THREE Was Petitioner denied Equal Protection when he was sentenced to automatic life without parole upon his conviction, as mandated under Texas law without exception, yet his codefendant did not receive the same automatic sentence of life without upon his guilty plea to Capital Murder? V,VI & XIV amends. U.S. Const. ii