Did trial counsel render ineffective assistance for failure to quash or dismiss Constructive, Amended Indictment, amended by the court on third day after the merits on the trial commenced?

QUESTION(S) PRESENTED 1.Did trial counsel render ineffective assistance for failure to quash or dismiss Constructive, Amended Indictment, amended by the sacourt on third day after the merits on the €eia2 commenced? 2.Was counsel incompetent for letting the Court and state deny Ri -vera his constitutional right to confront the tuo key state ; witnesses whotatiginated thetsexual abuse allegations against ‘him? 5 . a : . , . \ » ¢ . : Answer ta Question One: ; Yes, The trial court and the state did commit "Reversible Error" of constitutional dimension.The court was intentionally and delibes rately deceived and cmislead by the prosecutor's fabricated conClusory evidence,that Rivera had aprior sexual conviction in 2002 of indecency with a minor in Nueces County,by her following state -ment to the judge: excerpt; State:--I don't think we have a probation issue,regardless, because he's got a prior felony conviction.Even if ‘7%° they find a less...lesser included,probation is not an issue.(C.R. V2,P11,L346). On the third day after the trial on the merits had: commenced, and the judge had looked at the prosecutor's fabricated concluso) . beSperded ry evidence;the: judge-during-the trialrfAriceedings: stated: Court:Okay ,cause it only appears that the indecency's » already in and the only other case that's at issue is forgery deferred.(¢-& vé, P200, 2 24-26) . Thus as reflected by the record,the court was intehtionally-. misled into beli@ving that Rivera was azhabituat7sexual offender, . in order to "constructively Amend" indictment. Said amendment ..2 changed the statutory base offenses TPx:P.C.721.11 and 22.021 to a:differént statutory affense TX<P.C.21.02. This changed: the substance of original grand jury indictment and broaden the possible bases for conviction beyond thase «presented by the Gfand Jury.:-. Plus eliminated Riverass ehigibihity:far (probation Of parote .! > under the original statutory base offenses he was aon trial for from day one.Which even if found guilty under otiginal statues he would have still been eligible for probation or parole. . , b . a | , ; ; | Thus prejudicing Rivera's substantial rights under the Fifth : Amendment,because the charges presented by the Grand Jury's Indictment for which he had been on trial for,from day one of the trial proceedings,was impermissibly amended over counsel's <3" . timely objection. This "Constructive Amendment" to indictment was of "Constitutional Magnitude" as it was never review nor presented by the Grand Jury in violation of Rivera's Constitutional Rights under the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution which reads in part: No person shall be held to answer for a capital,or infamous crime,unless on a presentment or indictment of-a grand jury... . "A constructive amendment to an indictment occurs when the govern -ment...the court...or both,broadens the possible bases for con: viction beyound those presented by the Grand Jury".United States , v. Cusimano,148 F.3d B24,829(7th Cir.1998) (quoting U.S. v.'Floresca,38 Fi3d 706,710(4th Cir.1994);U.S. v. Hoover,467 F.3d 496, 502(5th Cir.2006). . . Therefore,the sleight-of-hand surprise constructive amendment : dane on the third day by improper jury instruction, violated the Sth Amendment Grand Jury Clause and was unconstitutional because the structural protectians of the Grand Jury have been compromised as to render the proceedings fundamentally unfair. : . c ‘ Answer to Question Tuo: Yes, < ' Rivera asserts that his defense counsel was incompetent and rendered ineffective assistance because after the court and the . state denied Rivera of his right to canfront the two state key witnesses against him,wha originated instant case,he failed to ob ject and preserve the record regarding said denial. : These two stae key witnesses were the first anes to accuse Ri, vera of sexual abuse against J.E. and were available to testify in court.And Rivera had asked his counsel to subpoena them so the ; truth could come out as to why they h