Was Petitioner's 94 year sentence for rape related charges based only on accuser's testimony, in violation of Fifth-Amendment-Due-Process, warrant habeas-relief when the state violated trial-court's-order-on-Discovery and withheld Brady-materials to exculpatory-evidence, impeaching-evidence, 412-Rape-Shield-law-conflict, 403/404(b)-evidence

QUESTION(S) PRESENTED Was Petitioner's 94 year sentence for rape related charges, : _ based only on accuser's testimony, in violation of-Fifth Amendment Due Process rights warrant habeas relief when the state violated : . trial court's order on Discovery and withheld Brady materials to: ' exculpatory’ expert medical evidence, impeaching evidence in the accuser's past rape allegations. not disclosed the blocked by 412 Rape Shield law conflict, no pre-trial disclosure of 403/404(b) _ evidence or of state held rebuttle evidence? . : ; Was. trial ineffective under this — : ; : Court's standards in Strickland. by failing to investigate and , . present to the jury exculpatory expert medical evidence} use ; 8 impeaching, rebuttle and mitigating evidence because he ; ° : : . believed the case was'’over at nolle prosequi order and never 7 investigated or gained rebuttle evidence against 403/404(b) : . . exhibit; and did appedlate counsel fail to raise these significant : claims on appeal, which establishes excuses for procedural default? : pia the lower courts commit reversible err:denying Petitioner ; : : § 2254 and state Post-conviction motions without conductifng an evidentiary hearing to resolve the factual disputes, conflicts : : ; with issues of law, sentencing errors and denial of every discovery . yequest as "moot" because the courts held no hearings? . 7 , . : ;